Nestle, Eberhard, 1851-1913:Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament (1901)

//V7

CORNELLUNIVERSITYLIBRARY

The Robert M. and Laura Lee Lintz

Book Endowment for the Humanities

Class of 1924

mm^ wuv

yK

Cornell University

Library

The original of this book is in

the Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in

the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924091353510

INTRODUCTION TO THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM

OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

INTRODUCTIONTO THE

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

BV

EBERHARD NESTLE, Ph. and Th.D.MAULBKONN

TRANSLATED FROM THE SECOND EDITION{With Corrections and Additions by the Author)

BY

WILLIAM EDIE, B.D.KING EDWARD

AND EDITED WITH A PREFACE BV

ALLAN MENZIES, D.D.

PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY AND BIBLICAL CRITICISM IN THEUNIVERSITY OF ST- ANDREWS

WILLIAMS AND NORGATE14 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON

10 SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGHand 7 BROAD STREET, OXFORDNew York: G. P. TUTNAM'S SONS

1 901

FKINTED BY

NE1LI. AND COMPANY LIMITED

EDITOR'S PREFACE.

Professor Eberhard Nestle of Maulbronn is one of the

distinguished company of philologists who have in recent

years directed their attention to the study of the New Testa-

ment. He is by no means a stranger in this country.

Readers of the Expositor and the Expository Times are

familiar with his name, and are accustomed to receive from

him original and independent discussions of New Testament

textual problems. He is consulted by scholars both in this

BELLEvuE, EDiNHUKGH country and on the Continent on questions of Aramaic and

Syriac scholarship, and has contributed, in the way of

criticism and careful proof reading, to many important

publications of English scholars, such as Professor Swete's

edition of the Septuagint,1 the publications of Mrs. Lewis

and Mrs. Gibson (The Sinaitic Palimpsest, etc), and the

Gospel of the Twelve Apostles recently published by Pro-

fessor Rendel Harris.

The readers of this volume may be glad to know a

little more of its author. A native of Wiirttemberg, he was

educated at the Gymnasium of Stuttgart and then at the

Theological Seminary of Blaubeuren, the latter being one of

the four old cloister schools of Wiirttemberg, in which, far from

the distractions of large towns, a thorough philological train-

> See the Dedication to Dr. Nestle of Professor Swete's Introduction to the Old

Testament in Greek, just published.

editor's preface.

ing is provided for the future clergy of that kingdom. It was

as " Praeceptor " of one of these schools that Albrecht Bengel,

that great textual critic and unaffectedly pious man, spent the

best part of his life, and in his Marginalien und Materialien

Dr. Nestle gives an interesting account of Bengel as a scholar,

and describes the studies of the school over which he pre-

sided. Our author studied divinity and oriental languages at

the Universities of Tubingen and Leipzig, and considers it

one of the happy dispensations of his life that he was per-

mitted to live in England for two years, working in the

British Museum and preaching to German congregations in

London. He was then Repetent or Tutor at the Theological

Seminary of Tubingen, and, after a short period of work as a

preacher, was called to the Gymnasium of (Jim to teach

Greek, German, Hebrew, and Religion. For two years he

filled the vacant professorship of Semitic languages at the

University of Tubingen, but, not being appointed to the chair,

he returned to Ulm. From there he moved to the Seminary

at Maulbronn, which offered better opportunities for combined

philological and theological studies.

Dr. Nestle's principal works are :

—

Die israelitischen Eigen-

namen nac/i ihrer religionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung (Proper

Names in Israel : their significance for the history of religion),

the Prize Essay of the Leiden Tyler Society, 1876. An earlier

Prize Essay at Tubingen on the Septuagint and Massorah

of Ezekiel was also successful, but was not published.

Psalterium Tetraglottum (Graece, Syriace, Ckaldaice, Latine),

1 879. Sixth and Seventh Editions of Tischendorfs Septuagint

(with new collation of Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alex-

andrinus) 1880, 1887.

Septuagintastudien, i.-iii., J 886, 1 896, 1898.

EDITOR'S PREFACE. vn

Syriac Grammar (Latin, 1881 ; German, 1888; English,

1889).

Novi Testamenti Graeci Supplementum, 1896 (Collation of

Codex Bezae : Apocryphal Gospels).

Philologica Sacra, 1896.

Minor publications collected in Margitialien und Materialien,

>893-

Edition of the Greek New Testament for the Stuttgart

Bible Society, 1898, of which a third edition is now in pre-

paration.

Numerous contributions to theological and literary Journals

(Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theologie, Studien und Kritiken,

Theologische Literaturzeitung, Literarisches Centralblatt) and to

Herzog-Hauck, Encyklopadiefiir Protestantische Theologie.

The Introduction now brought before the English public

in Mr. Edie's translation is thus the work of one who is, and

has long been, actively engaged in the studies belonging to

several parts of the great subject of the text of the NewTestament, and who possesses an exact and practised know-

ledge of the words of the sacred books of Christianity. The

present manual accordingly shows the instruments of criticism

in actual operation in the hands of a master. It was meant

originally for the Goschen-Sammlung, a collection of small

manuals for the general public, and arose out of the wish of the

author to tell his pupils with whom he read the Greek Testa-

ment, as well as others, more about the history of the NewTestament text than was at the time generally accessible.

The handbook was brought out by the theological publishers

Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, literary references being then

added to fit it for use by students of theology. It met with

a warm welcome from such readers, and the second edition

EDITORS PREFACE.

was largely recast so as to meet still further the purposes

of students. The long experience of Professor Nestle as a

teacher of younger pupils has no doubt enabled him to pre-

sent the subject so clearly that his book may find favour

in the eyes of the general reader, and commend itself to all

who care for the New Testament.

The absence of theological bias will not be thought by

any wise judge a disadvantage in a work of this character.

It will be observed that Professor Nestle does not regard

the texts recently formed by great scholars as constituting,

either singly or jointly, a Textus Receptus in view of which

textual enquiry may now desist from its labours, but that

he believes that much is still to be learned about the text

both of the Gospels and of the other books of the New

Testament.

This translation, as the title-page indicates, has been made

from the second, enlarged, edition, and the author has kindly

furnished various corrections and additions,- bringing the

book in its English form up to date. Some additional

references to English books and periodicals have been

inserted by the translator.

A. M.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.

History of the Printed Text since 1514,

Complutensian Polyglot — Aldus— Erasmus— Collections of

editions— Literature— First critical edition : Colinaeus—

Stephen— Verse division—Beza—Polyglots : Antwerp :

Paris: London—Ekevir— Textus Receptus—Critical at-

tempts : Caryophilus ; Courcelles : Saubert : Simon—Mill

—Toinard—Bentley—Gerhard von Maestricht—Bengel

—

Wettstein— Griesbach— Matthaei— Birch— Moldenhauer

—Adler— Scholz— Lachmann— Teschendorf—Tregelles

—

Westcott and Hort : their types of text—Weymouth— B.

Weiss — von Gebhardt — Stuttgart New Testament—Schjott—Baljon—Catholic editions : Gratz—van Ess—

Gehringer— Patricius— Jaumann — Reithmayer— Hetze-

nauer—Brandscheid—Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.

PAGF-S

1-27

CHAPTER II.

Materials of the Textual Criticism of the New Testa-

ment 28-155

Autographs—Manuscripts—Versions—Quotations—Number of

Manuscripts—Uncial and Cursive Script—Age—Material

—Scriptiocontinua—Accentuation—Stichometry—Palimp-

sests — Punctuation — Size — Contents — Lectionaries —Parchment— Ink— Papyrus— Paper— Pen— Manuscripts

CONTENTS.

de luxe— Illustration—Uncials : of the whole New Testa-

ment : of the Gospels : of the Acts and Catholic Epistles :

of the Pauline Epistles : of the Apocalypse—Minus-

cules—Ferrar Group—Lectionaries—Versions : Syriac :

Peshitto: Curetonian: Lewis: Tatian: Philoxenian : Hark-

lean : Gwynn : Jerusalem : Literature of Syriac Versions

—Latin Versions : Old Latin manuscripts : Fathers : The

Vulgate : Jerome : Alcuin : Theodulf : Harding : Correc-

toria Bibliorum : Mazarin Bible : Sixtine and Clementine

Vulgate—Egyptian Versions : Boh^iric : Sahidic : Middle

Egyptian— Gothic— Ethiopic— Armenian — Georgian —Arabic— Patristic Quotations.

CHAPTER III.

Theory and Praxis of the Textual Criticism of the

New Testament, 1 56-246

Task and method— Internal criticism—Conjecture—Eclectic

method — Genealogical method — External testimony

—Lucian : his relation to the Peshitto— Hesychius

:

Codex B—Eusebius : Pamphilus : Origen : Euthalius :

Evagrius : Athos manuscript — Later revisers — Pre-

Origenic texts—Heretics : Arteinonites, Marcosians, Basil-

ides, Noetus, Valentinians, Gnostics, Marcionites, Arians

—

Marcion : his relation to the Western text—Tatian : ques-

tion as to a Greek Harmony : his relation to the Western

text—The Western text : theory of Blass : the Lucan writ-

ings in Codex Bezae : conclusion of Luke's Gospel : the

Apostolic Decree—Rules of Textual criticism : sources of

error: illegibility: homoioteleuton : transposition of letters

and words : itacism : substitution of synonymous terms :

additions : conscious alterations : stylistic, liturgic, and

dogmatic changes : critical canons : proper names : textus

brevior—Conclusion.

CONTENTS. xl

Critical Notes on Various Passages of the NewTestament, 247-335

Appendix I. List of Greek and Latin Writers, . 33°

Appendix II. List of Passages referring to am-

ypa<f>a, ....-••• 34°

Index of Subjects, 343

Index of New Testament Passages referred to, . 35°

ABBREVIATIONS.

The symbols used to indicate the various manuscripts and versions

will be found in the chapter on Materials. The student will compare

the Notes in Tischendorfs Edito octavo, minor and the Index in the

Octava maior, vol. iii. The following contractions are employed in

the course of this work :

—

GGA. = Gottinger gelehrte Anzeigen.

GK. = Zahn's Geschichle des neutestamentlichen Kanons. See

p. 196 n. 2.

LCbl. = Literarisches Centralblatt

PRE. = Protestantische Real-Encyklopadie. See p. 7.

ThLbl. = Theologisches Literaturblatt.

ThLz. = Theologische Literaturzeitung.

ThStKr. = Theologische Studien und Kritiken.

TiGr. = Tischendorfs N.T. Graece, editio octava maior, vol. iii.

See p. 6.

TU. = Texte und Untersuchungen.

Urt. = Urtext und Uebersetzungen der Bibel. See p. 6f.

W-H. = Westcott and Hort. See p. a 1.

W-W. = Wordsworth and White. See pp. 123, 131.

ZdmG. = Zeitschrift der morgenlandischen GesellschafL

ZfdPhil. = Zeitschrift fiir deutsche Philologie.

ZfwTh. = Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie.

ADDENDA.

Page 6. To the Literature add : Riiegg, Die ntutestamentliehe

Textkritik sett Lachmann, Zurich, 1892.

Page 74. Two fragments of N.T. text have been published byGrenfell and Hunt in The Amherst Papyri, Part I. : The Ascension

of Isaiah and other theological fragments (London, 1900). The first

consists of Hebrews L 1, written, along with Genesis i. 1, in a small

uncial hand of the late third, or more probably early fourth, century at

the top of a papyrus leaf containing a letter from Rome. The versefrom the N.T. exhibits the reading toi* irarpacriv v/tuc, which is notfound in any of the manuscripts. The other fragment consists 'of

Acts ii. n-22 with lacunae, written on vellum and dating apparentlyfrom about the fifth or sixth century. It contains a few singular

readings such as : (verse 1 2) irpos t o v SXXov; (13) {xKtva{ot> kiyovrts,

which is practically the reading of D, the only difference being that

D has the compound verb Biex\€va£ov ; (14) yvworov v/uv, apparently

;

(17) /icto roiVo with B instead of iv toTs ia-xaran TjfUpais, and also,

apparently, ^vnrio with the textus receptus; (20) wplv j) with thetextus receptus

; (21) 8s a»> with the textus receptus.

Page 91. Add: J. R. Harris, Further Researches info the Historyof the Ferrar Group, 1900.

-fij^f 106(5). Add: Hilgenfeld, Thomas von Heraklea und die

Apostelgeschichte, in the ZfwTh., 1900, 3.

Page 137. Add: Forbes Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, in

Texts and Studies, iv. 2, 1896.

Page 1 39. To Kauflmann's Beitrage must now be added : v. Dercodex Brixianus (ZfdPhil. xxxii. pp. 305-335). In this important

xvi ADDENDA.

contribution Kauffmann corroborates the view expressed by Burkitt

in the Journal of Theological Studies,!, pp. 129-134. that Wordsworth

and White were mistaken in regarding the text of codex Bnx.anus (f)

as a recension of the Old Latin closely allied to Jerome's revision.

Burkitt holds that the text of Brixianus was corrected from the

Vuleate, and afterwards altered in conformity with the Gothic. the

only difference between Burkitt and Kauffmann is that the alter

believes that the text of Brixianus was derived from an^earlier Latin

manuscript which had been altered in conformity with the Gothic,

and that it was aftewards assimilated to the Vulgate. Thus view

must also be noted in connection with the Old Latin codex gue (see

p. 118). For an example of the connection between Brixianus and

the Gothic see the note to p. 289, below.

Page 162. Add: (9) John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, in cod. min. 90.

Fare 289. John vii. i S . For 'Iovfiolbi f here reads turbae, which is

interesting as agreeing with the Gothic, which has manager. Com-

pare the view of Burkitt and Kauffmann in the note to p. 139 above.

The variant is not mentioned in Tischendorf.

~f

INTRODUCTIONTO THE

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THEGREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

CHAPTER I.

HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514.

It is not quite creditable to Christian scholarship at the close

of the Middle Ages that not a single printed edition of the

Greek New Testament appeared during the course of the

fifteenth century. The Jews printed their Hebrew Psalter

as early as 1477, and the entire Hebrew Bible in 1488.

1. The honour of producing the first edition belongs to the Editio prin-

Spanish Cardinal Francis Ximenes de Cisneros (1437-1517). iePs -

It was included in the so-called Complutensian Polyglot, which siatTpoiygiot.

takes its name from Complutum (now Alcala de Henares),where it was printed. The plan of the work was conceived asearly as 1 502, in celebration of the birth of the future EmperorCharles V. The scholar who had the principal part in it wasJames Lopez de Stunica. The printing of the New Testamentwas completed on the 10th January 15 14, and of the remainingfive volumes, comprising the Old Testament with Grammarand Lexicon, on the 10th July 1517. On the 8th Novemberof the same year the Cardinal died. It was not, however, till

A

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. I.

the 22nd March 1520 that Pope Leo X. sanctioned the publi-

cation of the work, the two Vatican manuscripts of the Greek

Old Testament, which had been borrowed in the first year of

Leo's papacy, having been returned on the 9th July 1519.'

On the 5th December 1 521, the presentation copy designed

for the Pope, printed on parchment and bound in red velvet,

was placed in the Vatican Library. No copies seem to have

reached Germany through the trade till the year 1522. Only

600 copies were printed, which were sold at 6\ ducats per

COpy—about £3 of our present English money. The Cardinal,

who enjoyed the income of a king but was content to live like

a monk, expended over 50,000 ducats on the undertaking. At

the present time, copies of the Complutensian Polyglot,

especially those printed on parchment, are counted among the

rarest treasures of libraries. The Old Testament is printed in

three columns, the Latin text of the Bible used in the Church

of the Middle Ages standing between the original Hebrew

text of the Synagogue and the Alexandrian Greek version,

" like Jesus between the two thieves." The New Testament

has only two columns, that on the left containing the Greek

text, that on the right the Latin version. For the sake of

those learning Greek the corresponding words in each are

indicated. The type is modelled on the characters found in

good manuscripts. Of accents, the acute alone is used to

mark the tone syllable.

Literature.—Scrivener, Introduction, ii. c. 7 ; Hoskier (see be-

low, p. 5) ; Frz. Delitzsch, Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichtc der Poly-

glottenbibel des Cardinals Ximenes, Leipzig, 187 1; Fortgesetzte Studien,

1886; Urtext und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, p. 64. A facsimile of

the title-page and colophon will be found in Schaff's Companion to

t/te Greek Testament and the English Version. The decree of Pope

Leo X. is printed in the Greek and Latin Testament of Van Ess,

Tiibingen, 1827.

Previous to Ximenes, however, the famous Venetian printer

Aldus Manutius had conceived the idea of such a Polyglot.

1 They were reinserted in the library on the 23rd August.

CHAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514. 3

In the Preface to his undated Greek Psalter {circa 1497). a

triglot Bible was promised. Of this he was reminded from

London by Grocyn on the 6th October 1499. On the 9th

July 1 501 he wrote about it to the German humanist Conrad

Celtes, to whom he sent the first specimen page on the 3rd

September of the same year. (Facsimile in Renouard, L'ltn-

primerie des Aides2 ' 3.)

Still earlier, the Magnificat and the Benedictus l had been

printed among the hymns at the end of the Greek Psalter

(Milan, 1481 ; Venice, i486). These were the first portions of

the Greek New Testament to be printed, while the first printed

in Germany appeared at Erfurt in 1501-2. The first edition

of the Greek New Testament for sale was Erasmus's edition

of 1 5 16.

Literature.—On Aldus, see Nestle, Septuagintastudien, i. 2

;

ii. 11. On Aldus's well-known device, the anchor and dolphin, see

Leon Dorez, Atudes Aldirus, Revue des bibliotheques, vi. (1896),

part 5-6, p. 143 ff. ; part 7-9; also J. R. Harris, The Homeric Cen-

tones, London, 1898, p. 24. The device is emblematic of the favour-

ite motto of Augustus and Titus, del amuSc /JpaSe'ws, Semper festina

lente.

2. Froben, the printer of Basel, was anxious to forestall the Erasmus,

costly edition of the Spanish Cardinal, and with this object ''' '

appealed on the 15th March 1515 to the famous humanist

Desiderius ERASMUS (1467-1536), then in England. His

edition appeared as early as the 1st March 15 16, and was

dedicated on the 1st February to Pope Leo. The printing

was begun in the previous September, and was partly super-

intended by Zwingli's friend, John Oecolampadius of Weins-

berg. Erasmus himself confessed afterwards that his NewTestament was " praecipitatum verius quam editum," though

he boasted that he had employed in its preparation not anysort of manuscripts, but the oldest and most correct copies.2

As early as 1734, J. A. Bengel recognised that in the Apoca-

1 Mary's Hymn, Luke i. 46-55 ; and Hymn of Zacharias, Luke i. 68-79.- " Nee eis sane quibuslibet, sed vetustissimis simul et emendatissimis."

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAr. I. CHAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514. 5

lypse Erasmus must have used only one manuscript, and that

partly mutilated, so that he was unable to read it correctly

and was obliged to supply its lacunre by means of a retrans-

lation from the Latin into Greek. And this conclusion was

confirmed in 1861 by the rediscovery of that very manuscript

by Franz Delitzsch in the Oettingen-Wallerstein Library at

Mayhingen. 1

In a parallel column Erasmus gave a translation of the

Greek into elegant Latin. The Emperor protected the edition

for four years by copyright, but as early as February 15 18 it

was reprinted by Aldus Manutius in his Greek Bible. It was

sanctioned by the Pope on the loth September 1518. Four

successive editions were afterwards prepared by Erasmus:the

second in 1519, the third in 1522, the fourth (improved) in

1527, and the fifth in 1535.

In his third edition, Erasmus for the first time incorporated

the well-known "comma Johanneum," the passage about the

Three Witnesses (1 John v. 7). He did so on the evidence of

a manuscript now in Dublin (Montfortianus,6i), in which the

1 At the present time this text of Erasmus is still disseminated by tens and even

hundreds of thousands by the British and Foreign Bible Society of London. To

this day the word iKaOapTijToi is printed in their editions at Apoc. xvii. 4, though

there is no such word in the Greek language as lutaeAprnt, meaning uncleanness. In

the concluding verses of the New Testament, which were retranslated by Erasmus

from his Latin Bible, there stands the lovely future &<t>mpfon for &<pt\tl. We find

also constructions like oin tint, Katirtp latlv, in c. xvii. 8, where, however, the

accentuation la-rh makes Erasmus responsible for an additional error he did not

commit, seeing that he at least printed tatw. Every college lad knows that

xaUff is construed with the participle, though it is not perhaps every one that will

sec just at once that xal iriptcrri is the correct reading. [Cf. Mark xv. 6, where

the MSS. fluctuate in like manner between hi> irapjrroivro and trrtp jjtoDvto (ON-

nAPHTOTNTO.)] Other instances where the Textus Receptus has adopted the

reading of Erasmus in spite of the fact that it is unsupported by any known MS.

are to be found, e.g. in 1 Pet. ii. 6 (na\ wpttxu) and in 2 Cor. i 6. Luther,

who used Erasmus's second edition of 15 19, followed him in saying of the Beast,

" that is not although it is." This, however, is not so remarkable as that in the

year 1883 such things were still allowed to stand in the first impression of the Re-

vised Version of Luther's Bible issued by the Conference of German Evangelical

Churches, and only removed in their last Revision of 1892. The error in Apoc.

xvii. 8 was copied into the English Authorised Version of 1611 (" is not and yet

is ") but was corrected by the Revisers of 18S4 ("is not and shall come ").

passage had probably been inserted from the Vulgate by the

English Franciscan monk Roy. From the Vulgate it had

already been received, in a slightly different form, into the

Complutensian Polyglot. Luther himself purposely omitted

it from his version. The first edition of his translation to

contain it was that printed at Frankfurt by Feyerabend in

1576. It was not inserted in the Wittenberg editions till

1596. After 1534 no Greek edition appeared without it for

the space of 200 years.

Literature.—Scrivener, vol. ii. p. 182 ff. ; Frz. Delitzsch, Hand-

schriftliche Funde, i., Leipzig, 1861 ; H. C. Hoskier, A full Account

and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelium 604 . . .

together with ten Appendices containing . . . . (B) . . . . the various

readings by thefive editions 0/Erasmus, 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1 535.

. . . . (F) Report of a Visit to the Public Library at Bale, with fac-

simile of Erasmus's second MS. Evan. 2, .... London, 1890. OnErasmus's supplementary matter, the New Version, Anriotationes,

Paraclesis ad lectorem, Methodus and Apologia, as also on the

entire practical and reforming aim of his N.T., see R. Stahelin

in the Protestantische Real-Encyklopadie, third edition, v. 438.

Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus, p. 126 ff.

3. The number of editions of the Greek New Testament Coilectioni

which have been brought out since the time of Ximenes isof Cl,ltl0ns-

about 1000. No library in the world contains them all. In

the last century the Danish Pastor Lorck possessed perhaps

the largest private collection of Bibles. This was purchased byDuke Charles of Wtirttemberg, and has found a place in the

Royal Public Library at Stuttgart. Unfortunately, it is not

possible to supplement or enlarge it in the way that it deserves.

The largest collection of the present century is that of the

late Prof. Ed. Reuss of Strassburg. In his descriptive cata-

logue he established the genealogy of the separate editions bya collation of the readings in 1000 selected passages. Several

editions he was unable to obtain : some he was obliged to

regard as of doubtful existence : others, again, mistakenlyquoted by previous collectors, he was able to discard once for


all. His labours form the basis of those further researches

prosecuted with much ardour chiefly in England and America

:

in the latter by the German-Swiss scholar Philip SchafT (d.

20th Oct. 1893), and his American friend I. H. Hall (d. 1896),

in England by F. H. A. Scrivener (d. 26th Oct. 1891), and

in Germany by the American C. R. Gregory. Mention can

be made of only a few of these printed editions.

Literature.—Ed. Reuss, Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci,

cuius editions ab initio typographic^ ad nostram aetatem impressas

quotquot reperiri potuerunt colkgit digessit illustravit E. R. Argentora-

tensis, Brunsvigae, 1872. Teschendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece

ad antiquissimos testes denuo recensuit apparatum criticum apposuit

Constantinus de Tischendorf, Lipsiae (Hinrichs), vol. i. 1869; vol. ii.

1872 ; vol. iii., Prolegomena scripsit Caspar Renatus Gregory odditis

curis Ezrae Abbot, 1894, 8vo. (vol. iii. cited in the following part

of this work under the symbol TiGr.). F. H. A. Scrivener,

A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.

Fourth edition, edited by Ed. Miller, 2 vols., London, 1894. P.

Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version.

Fourth edition revised, New York, Harper, 1892. SchafTs Com-

panion gives, in an Appendix, Reuss's list of printed editions of

the Greek N.T., with additions bringing it down to 1887, by

I. H. Hall. It also contains an interesting set of facsimile illustra-

tions of twenty-one standard editions of the Greek N.T., showing

in each case the title-page and a page of the print I. H. Hall,

A Critical Bibliography of the Greek New Testament, as published

in America, Philadelphia, 1883. Also, by the same author, Some

Remarkable Greek New Testaments, in the Journal of the Society

of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, Dec. 1886, 40-63. S. P.

Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament

with remarks on its revision and a collation of the critical texts with

that in common use, 1 854. Copinger, The Bible and its Transmission,

being an historical and bibliographical view of the Hebrew and Greek

Texts, and the Greek, Latin, and other Versions of the Bible (both

manuscript andprinted) prior to the Reformation. With 28 facsimiles.

London, Sotheran, 1897, large 8vo. H. J. Holtzmann, Einleitung

in das Neue Testament (Allgemeiner Teil, Geschichte des Textes), Frei-

burg, 1886. Urtext und Uebersetzungen der Bibd in ilbersichtlicher

CHAP. I] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514. 7

Darstellung, a reprint of the article " Bibeltext und Bibeliibersetz-

ungen," in the third edition of the Real-Encyklopadie fur protes-

tantische Theologie und Kirche, Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1897, pp. 15-61

(Tischendorf), O. v. Gebhardt, " Bibeltext des Neuen Testamentes"

PRE, ii. 728-773 (cited hereafter as Uri.). C. R. Gregory, Textkritik

des Neuen Testamentes, vol. i. Leipzig, 1900. Vol. ii. in the press.

4. The first to prepare a really critical edition of the Greek First critical

New Testament, i.e. one based on a collation of manuscripts,edlt,on -

was Simon de Colines (Colinaeus), the father-in-law of the

Parisian printer Robert Stephen (Estienne). In his edition,1

which appeared in 1534, he adopted for the first time a number

of readings that are now generally accepted, though naturally

he did not succeed in gaining credit for them. Up till the

time of Mill and Bengel the publishers and their more or less

uncritical coadjutors simply reprinted the text of Ximenes

and Erasmus, mostly the latter, with trifling variations.

Among the innovations introduced by these editors was the

choice of a more convenient form. The first editions were all

in folio. But in 1521, Anselm, then in Hagenau but previously -

in Tubingen, reduced the size to quarto; in 1524 Cephaleus

in Strassburg still further to octavo ; while Valder printed the

first miniature edition in Basel in 1536. The smallest edition

printed previous to this century is that of Jannon, 1628

(Sedan) ; the smallest of this century is that of Pickering, 1828

(London).

But a much more important feature was the collation of

fresh manuscripts. The credit of being pioneer in this respect

rests with the Parisian Typographer-Royal, Robert Stephen Stephen.

(1503-1559). He was assisted by his son Henry Stephen

( 1528-1 598), particularly in the preparation of his third edition

of 1550, the Editio Regia, which takes its name from the

inscription on its title-page in honour of Henry II., BatnXe? t'

ayadw, Kparepw t aixniTiJ.1 The first edition, called O miri-

ficam, from the opening words of its preface, appeared in 1 546.

The Editio Regia was the first to contain a critical apparatus

1 Facsimile in SchafTs Companion.

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAI". I.

in which fifteen manuscripts indicated by the Greek letters

£—,5- were collated with the text of the Complutensian which

was designated a. All the manuscripts employed were of

late date, with two exceptions, viz., the Codex Bezae, of which

we shall have a good deal to say in the sequel, and a Parisian

MS. of the eighth century, now known as L.

Verse division. An important innovation of another sort is due to the same

Robert Stephen, who printed at Geneva in the following year

(i 55 1) a fourth edition containing the Greek text with the

Latin version of Erasmus on the outer side and the Vulgate

on the inner.1 With a view to carrying out this arrangement

conveniently, he divided the text into separate verses or very

small sections, which he numbered on the margin. In this

way he introduced into the New Testament not only a con-

venient verse-enumeration—there are 7959 verses in all—but

also the unfortunate practice of printing the text in separate

verses. Mill in 1707, and notably Bengel in 1734, were the

first to revert to the practice of printing the text in paragraphs

divided according to the sense while retaining the enumeration

of the verses in the margin. The customary division of the

Chapters. New Testament books into chapters is much earlier, having

been first invented in Paris for the Latin Bible by Stephen

Langton (died Archbishop of Canterbury in 1228), and at

once adopted in the earliest printed editions of the Vulgate.

It was employed in the Complutensian Polyglot with a sub-

division of the various chapters into ABC etc.

Literature.— Nov. Test, textus Stephanici a.d. 1550, ed. Scrivener,

Camb., 1859, 1871 etc. Hoskier (as above). . . . (B) A Reprint

ivith corrections of Scrivener's list of differences between the editions of

Stephen 1550 and Elzevir 1624, Beza 1565 and the Complutensian,

together with fresh evidence . . . by the other editions of Stephen of

1546, 1549, 1551. . . . Ezra Abbot, De Versilms,'m TiGr. 167-182.

I. H. Hall, Modern Chapters and Verses, in SchafFs Religious Ency-

clopedia, i 433. Journal of the Soc. of Bib. Lit. and Exeg., 1883,

60 ; 1891, 65.



It is frequently stated that copies exist of Stephen's edition of

1551 (the first to contain the verse enumeration) bearing on the title-

page the date MDXLI. In the two I examined belonging to the col-

lections of Lorck and Reuss, the two halves of the number MD and

LI are far apart. In the case of the Lorck copy it is possible to

suppose that a letter has been erased from the middle, but not in

the Reuss copy. In his Preface, Stephen says: "Quod autem per

quosdam ut vocant versiculos opus distinximus, id, vetustissima

Graeca Latinaque ipsius Novi Testamenti exemplaria secuti, fecimus :

eo autem libentius ea sumus imitati, quod hac ratione utraque trans-

latio posset omnino eregione Graeco contextui respondere." As

Ezra Abbot pointed out, Stephen gave a double number \\ to the

verse Ti*« St ... . -rpot pi in Acts xxiv. A similar double

enumeration occurs in the previous chapter, where the verse rpafos

.... xaiptiv is numbered ;jf.Accordingly, Abbot's supposition

becomes pretty certain, that the verse division was originally made

for a Latin copy which, at the passage in Acts xxiv., contained the

additional sentence: Et apprehenderunt me clamantes et dicentes,

Tolle inimicum nostrum. And in chapter xxiii. several Latin

editions show an extra sentence at the place marked with the double

number: et ipse postea calumniam sustineret tanquam accepturus

pecuniam. But what edition it was from which Stephen took the

enumeration into his Greek copy is not yet known. Unfortunately, as

Abbot shows (I.e. 173-182), later editions frequently deviated from

Stephen's enumeration. Even Oscar v. Gebhardt, in his editions

of Tischendorfs text, followed in eight instances a different verse

division from that recommended by Gregory in his Emendanda

(p. 1251 ff-)-

Several mistakes in numbering crept into the Stuttgart edition of

the N.T., but the division and enumeration have been carefully

compared with that of the Reuss copy for the second edition.

There are differences in verse-division even in the reprint of Westcott

and Hort's Greek Testament (Macniillan fount, 1895), Heb. xii. 22,

23 : in Swete's Gospel of St. Mark (Mk. ii. 18, 19), and in Cronin's

edition of Codex Purpureus Petropolitanus (Lk. iii. 23, 24, ix. 7, 8.)

The Textus Receptus is usually indicated by the Greek letter ?, the

initial of Stephen's name.

Following Stephen, the French theologian Theodore de Beza.

Beze (Beza 1519-1605), the friend and successor of Calvin

io GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. I.

in Geneva, prepared, between 1565 and 161 1, four folio andsix octavo editions,1 which are noteworthy as forming, withthe last two editions of Stephen, the basis of the EnglishAuthorised Version. Beza was the owner of two valuableGreek-Latin manuscripts of the Gospels with the Acts andPauline Epistles, one of which, the now so famous CodexBezae, he presented to the University of Cambridge in 1581.He himself, however, made little use of these in his editions, asthey deviated too far from the printed texts of the time.Beza seems also, in the preparation of his Geneva edition, tohave been the first to collate the oriental versions. For thispurpose he employed the Syriac edition of EmmanuelTremellius (1569), and for Acts and 1 and 2 Corinthians theArabic version put at his disposal by Franciscus Junius.

Literature.—Scrivener, ii. 188 IT; Hoskier (as above) : the variousreadings

. ... by the remaining three Bezan editions in folio of 1582,1588-9, 1598, andtluZvo. editions of 1565, 1567, 1580, 1590, 1604.

f An°wer5

'.

The Credit °f Presenting these oriental versions in a con-'

veip' venient combination for the interpretation of the Bible belongs

to the so-called Antwerp Polyglot, the Biblia Regia, printed ineight folio volumes between 1569 and 1572 by ChristopherPlantin, a French printer residing in Antwerp. In this workthe Greek New Testament is printed twice, first in vol. v.,

alongside the Vulgate and the Syriac text with its Latintranslation, and again in vol. vi. with the interlinear versionof Arias Montanus. Plantin was aided in this enterprise by agrant of 12,000 ducats from King Philip II. It was carriedout under the supervision of the Spanish theologian BenedictArias, called Montanus from his birth-place Frexenal de laSierra.

" Lahore et Constantia" was the motto of this celebrated family ofprinters, who continued to carry on their trade on the same premisestill August 1867. Nine years later the house was sold to the cityand converted into the "Musee Plantin."

1 Facsimiles of Folio 1598 and Octavo 1604 in SchafTs Companion.

CHAT. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514. II

Of the Antwerp Polyglot 960 ordinary copies, were printed, 200

of a better quality, 30 fine, 10 superfine, and 13 on parchment, for

which last 16,263 skins were used. One of these Montaigne saw

and admired in the Vatican Library ; another, the copy dedicated

to the Archduke Alba, is in the possession of the British Museum.The undertaking was the glory of Plantin's life, but it was also the

beginning of his financial difficulties. Copies were sold to book-

sellers at 60 gulden each, and to the public at 70 gulden (about j£6ar|d .£7)- Ordinary copies now fetch from j£6 to j£j or £% Atthe sale of the Ashburnham Collection in 1897 a parchment copy

realised ^79. The supplements, including lexical and other matter,

are still valuable to a certain extent. But here the collector mustnote that certain parts have been reprinted.

On the Polyglots, see : Discours historique sur lesprincipales editions

des Billies Polyglottes. Par PAuteur de la Bibliotheque Sacrie,

Paris, 1 7 13; especially pp. 301-554, "Pieces justificatives du dis-

cours precedent." Also, Ed. Reuss, Pofyglottenbibeln, PRE2, xii.

95- ,03 ( l883)- Max Rooses, Christophe Plantin, ImprimeurAnversois, Antwerp, 1884. Fol. 100 plates. Also Correspondancede Plantin, edited by Rooses. 2 vols. 1886. L. Degeorge, LaMaison Plantin a Anvers. 3rd ed. Paris, 1886. R. Lorck, DasPlantin-Haus in Antwerpen. Vom Fels zum Meer, 1888-9, ix -

328-346. On the double imprint see Rooses, p. 123; A. Rahlfsin Lagarde's Bibliotheca Syriaca, p. 19. On Plantin's connectionwith the Familists see PRE3

, v. 751-755.

A still more extensive undertaking than the Antwerp 2. Parisian.

Polyglot is that brought out in Paris by the advocate GuyMichel LE Jay. This Parisian Polyglot extends to ten folio

volumes of the largest size, furnished externally in the mostsumptuous manner.. Le Jay expended his whole fortune onthe edition, and was obliged at last to sell it as waste paper,being too proud to accept the offer of Cardinal Richelieu, whowished to purchase the patronage of the enterprise for a largesum and thereby acquire the credit of it. The scholars whogave most assistance in the preparation of the oriental textswere Jean Morin and the Maronite Gabriel Sionita, the latterof whom superintended the Syriac portion. The two volumesof the New Testament, viz. vol. v. i, comprising the Gospels,

12 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CIlAl'. I. CHAR I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514. 13

and vol. v. 2, the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse, appeared in

1630 and 1633. I' 1 addition to the texts printed in the

Antwerp Polyglot, the Parisian contained a Syriac version of

the so-called Antilegomena, i.e. those parts of the NewTestament at one time disputed (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude,

and Apocalypse), and it had also an Arabic version, each

one being accompanied with a Latin translation.1

3. London. Less sumptuous, but more copious, convenient, and criti-

cally valuable, is the last, and at the present day still most

used of the four great Polyglots—the London Polyglot of Brian

Walton (1600-1661). It contains in all nine languages. In

the New Testament (vol. v.) there is the Greek text of

Stephen with slight alterations, the version of Arias, the

Vulgate, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, and (for the Gospels only)

Persic versions, each with a literal translation into Latin. The

sixth volume also contains Walton's Apparatus, which was

re-issued at Leipzig in 1777, and again at Cambridge by

F. Wrangham in two volumes in 1828. It is really a kind

of Introduction to Biblical Criticism. Finally, in two supple-

mentary parts, there is Edmund Castle's Lexicon Heptaglotton,

a thesaurus linguae semiticae such as no one since has

ventured to undertake.

The London Polyglot first appeared in 1657, under the patronage

of Cromwell, but after the Restoration it received a new Preface

from the editor, who was raised to the See of Chester by Charles II.

In this Preface Cromwell is styled " Magnus Draco ille." Accordingly,

bibliophiles draw a sharp line of distinction between republican

and loyalist copies. One of the former costs considerably more

than the latter, the most recent prices running from ^22 to ,£31.

This is said to have been the first work brought out in England

by subscription. See Schaff's " Companion " for facsimiles of title-

page and page of text. Todd : Life of Brian Walton with the

Bishop's Vindication of the London Polyglot Bible. London, 1821.

2 vols.

For this Polyglot, in addition to the critical works of

1 Copies of Hie Parisian 1'olyjjlot now cost about £6.

previous scholars, the Codex Alexandrinus of the Greek

Bible, sent by Cyril Lucar to Charles I. in 1628, was also

employed for the first time. Its readings are set at the foot

of the Greek text and indicated by the letter A. This was

the origin of the modern custom of indicating manuscripts

with Roman letters in the apparatus of critical editions not

only of the New Testament but of other books as well, a

custom which has generally prevailed since the time of Wett-

stein. That gift of Cyril Lucar seems really to have awakened

for the first time a general desire for critical editions. At the

same time it was Walton's edition that made Stephen's text

of 1550 the " textus receptus" in England.

6. On the Continent a similar result was attained by the Elzevir.

enterprising Dutch printers Bonaventura and AbrahamElzevir of Leyden. What scholars had a hand in their

edition, if we may speak of scholars at all in this connection,

is not known. In 1624 the Elzevirs published, in a handy

form and beautifully printed, an edition the text of which was

taken mainly from Beza's octavo edition of 1565. In their

Preface to a new issue in 1633 they said " textum ergo habes

nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut

corruptum damus,'' while they professed that even the smallest

errors—"vel minutissimae mendae''—had been eliminated

with judgment and care. By means of this catchword they

actually succeeded in making their text the most widely

disseminated of all during 200 years. The English Bible

Society alone have issued not fewer than 351,495 copies of it

in the 90 years of their existence, and at the present time are

still printing this text alone. They issued 12,200 copies of it

in the year 1894. For several centuries, therefore, thousands

of Christian scholars have contented themselves with a text

based ultimately on two or three late manuscripts lying at the

command of the first editors—Stephen, Erasmus, and Ximenes—a text, moreover, in which the erroneous readings of

Erasmus, already referred to, are retained to this day.

14 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. I.

Critical

attempts.

Literature.— Scrivener, ii. 193. Hoskier. . . . (C) a full and

exact comparison of the Elzevir editions of 1624 and 1633, doubling the

number of the real variants hitherto known, and exhibiting the support

given in the one case and in the other by the subsequent editions of 1641,

1656, 1662, 1670, and 1678. On the Elzevirs see G. Berghman,

Nouvelles Etudes sur la Bibliographic Elzevirienne. Supplement a

Pouvrage sur les Elzevier de M. Alphonse Willems, Stockholm, 1897.

Also, A. de Reume, Recherches historiques, genealogiques et bib/io-

graphiques sur les Elzevier, Brussels. Facsimile of the edition of

1633 in Schaff's Companion.

7. Even those who were impelled by a greater spirit of

research did not yet get back to the oldest attainable sources.

In Rome, CARYOPHILUS set about preparing a new edition.

With this view, about the year 1625 he collated twenty-two

manuscripts with the Antwerp Polyglot—ten for the Gospels,

eight for the Acts and Epistles, and four for the Apocalypse.

Among these were the most celebrated manuscript of the

Vatican Library, the " Codex Vaticanus " par excellence, and

another of the same collection, dating from the year 949

(Tischendorf's S), one of the oldest manuscripts of the Greek

New Testament whose date is known with certainty. The

results of this collator's labours were printed at Rome in

1673. But such collations were not then made with that

exactitude which is the primary condition of works of

this nature at the present day, though even now it is not

always observed. In 1658 Stefan de COURCELLES (Curcel-

laeus, 1586-1659), a native of Geneva, brought out an edition

which was printed by the Elzevirs, and which is valuable for

its scholarly Introduction, its careful collection of parallel

passages, and its fresh collation of manuscripts. In this

edition the " Comma Johanneum " was included in brackets.

The editor also expressed the opinion that even conjectural

readings deserve consideration. Courcelles had further pro-

jects in view, but these were interrupted by his death.

In 1672, in Germany, John Saubekt published a collection

of various readings in St. Matthew's Gospel which he had com-

CIIAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514. '5

piled from printed editions, manuscripts, ancient versions, and

quotations in the Greek and Latin Fathers.

In 1675 John FELL, afterwards Bishop of Oxford, pub-

lished anonymously at the Sheldonian Theatre, i.e. the Oxford

University Press, an edition in the preparation of which more

than 100 Greek manuscripts were employed. Among the

ancient versions the Gothic of Ulfilas and the Coptic were

also made use of.

About the same time (1689) there appeared anonymously

at Rotterdam a Histoire Critique du Texte du Nouveau Testa-

ment, by Richard Simon, a member of the French Congrega-

tion of the Oratory. Simon is the father of the historical

method of critical introduction to the New Testament. With

his work, what might be called the infancy of New Testament

criticism comes to a close. With Mill's New Testament

begins the period of its maturity, especially if Simon's works

are taken as belonging to it. Such, at least, was the

judgment expressed in 1777 by the Gottingen scholar J. D.

Michaelis. But we would say rather the period of its youth,

for otherwise we should now have reached the time of its old

age, and much work still remains to be done.

8. Encouraged by Bishop Fell, John MILL (1645-1707), Mill, '7°7-

about 1677, set to work upon an edition which appeared in

the year of his death. 1 The value of Mill's New Testament

lies in its extended critical apparatus, and particularly in its

Prolegomena. An enlarged edition was brought out in 17 10

by Ludolf Kiister of Westphalia(i670-I7i6), which, however,

had such a small sale that it had to be reissued with a new title-

page at Leipzig in 1723, and again at Amsterdam in 1746.

In Mill's time the number of various readings in the NewTestament was estimated at 30,000 : a competent estimate

will now make them more than four or five times as many.That is to say, there are almost more variants than words.

Mention must also be made of Nicolaus Toinard's Latin-


if, (iKKKK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHA1'. I.

Greek Harmony of the Gospels, which appeared at Orleans

in the same year as Mill's New Testament, and which was the

fruit of nearly as many years' labour. Toinard was the first

Catholic after Erasmus, and the last previous to Scholz, to

undertake a critical edition of the New Testament. He was

also the first editor after Beza to estimate properly the critical

value of the Vulgate.

Bentley. It was Edward Wells who set the example of greater free-

dom in the adoption into the text of new readings from the

manuscripts. His famous countryman, the great philologist

Richard BENTLEY (1662-1742), projected a great critical edi-

tion of the New Testament, but unfortunately got no further

than the preparation of materials and the publication of his

" Proposals" in 1720. He undertook to remove two thousand

errors from the Pope's Vulgate, and as many from that of the

Protestant Pope (Stephen), without using any manuscript under

900 years old. But as his edition never appeared, his nephew

had to refund the 2000 guineas prepaid by the subscribers.

In 1729 Mace published an edition anonymously, in which,

perhaps, most courage was shown in departing from the

ordinary text. Thereafter, English work in this department

was suspended for nearly a century. It was transferred to

Germany and the Netherlands by the Swabian scholar Ben-

gel and by Wettstein of Basel.

Literature.—A. A. Ellis, Btntleii Critica Sacra, Camb., 1862.

R. C. Jebb, Bentley, London, 1882. TiGr., 229-240. Wordsworth-

White, I. pp. xv-xxviii (see below, p. 123).

BeriRei. 9. As early as 171 1, G.D.T.M.D., i.e. Gerhard de Trajectu

Mosae (Maestricht) Doctor, a Syndic of Bremen, published

at Amsterdam an edition prefaced by 43 canons or rules of

criticism. Thereafter, in 1725, J. A. BENGEL (1687-1752)

issued his Prodromus Novi Testamenti Graeci recte cautcque

adornandi, in which he unfolded a most carefully thought-out

scheme for a new edition, undertaking to reduce all Gerhard

von Maestricht's 43 canons to one comprehensive rule of


four words. That was the principle now commonly expressedin the shorter but less satisfactory form—lectio difficilior

placet. Bengel himself chose a more careful mode of ex-pression—proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua. Six years laterhe was able to issue his Notitia Novi Testamenti Graeci rectecauteqiie adornati. It was published in 1734 at Tubingen byCotta in a handsome quarto. 1 In the same year a smalloctavo edition appeared at Stuttgart in which he urged theduty expressed in the motto,

Te totum applica ad textum,

Rem totam applica ad te.

Of the latter, four editions were afterwards brought outOf the large edition, the Apparatus, pronounced by Hauss-leiter to be a " memorable work of most solid and productivelearning," was reprinted separately after his death. Bengelwas too timid. He was unwilling to admit into the text anyreading which had not already appeared in some printededition. But he inserted new readings in the margin andclassified them. Out of 149 readings pronounced by Bengelto be genuine, only 20 are not now generally approved. Outof 118 whose genuineness appeared to him probable but notquite certain, 83 are now accepted.But Bengel's most important contribution to the textual

criticism of the Greek New Testament consists in the soundcritical principles which he laid down. He recognised thatthe witnesses must not be counted but weighed, i.e. classifiedand he was accordingly the first to distinguish two greatgroups or families of manuscripts. His principles were re-affirmed by the celebrated philologist Lachmann, the firstgreat textual critic of our time, and the advance which thelatest English critics have made on Tischendorf is really dueto the fact that they have gone back to Bengel.

LiTERATURE.-Eb. Nestle, Bengel als Gelehrter, tin Bild fur



Wettstcin.

llriesliach.

1

8

mure Tage. (In Marginalien und Materialien : also printed sepa-

rately, Tubingen, 1893.) Scrivener, ii. 204.

For the time, however, Bengel's rival, John WETTSTEIN

(1693-1754), outdid him. His treatise on the Various Read-

ings of the New Testament was published as early as 1713,

to be followed by his Prolegomena, which appeared anony-

mously in 1730, and later by his New Testament,1 which was

issued in two folio volumes in 175 1 and 1752. His Apparatus

is fuller than that of any previous editor, while he also gives

a detailed account of the various manuscripts, versions,

and Patristic writers. It was he who introduced the practice,

already referred to, of indicating the ancient MSS. by Roman

letters and the later MSS. by Arabic numerals. He too,

however, still printed the Elzevir text, following Maestrichfs

edition of 1735. At the foot of the text he placed those

readings which he himself held to be correct.

Literature.—Scrivener, Introduction, ii. 213; Carl Bertheau,

['RE-', xvii. 18-24, « 886.

10. J. J.GRIESBACII (1745-18 1 2) was the first in Germany

who ventured to print the text of the New Testament in the

form to which his criticism led him. He was the pupil of

Salomo Semler, who had combined the principles of Bengel

and Wettstein. These principles were adopted and carried out

by Griesbach. He enlarged the Apparatus by a more exact

use of citations from the Fathers, particularly from Origen,

and of various versions, such as the Gothic, the Armenian,

and the Philoxenian. In his classification of the witnesses,

Griesbach distinguished a Western, an Alexandrian, and a

Byzantine Recension. The edition, in four folio volumes,

printed by Gbschen at Leipzig (1 803-1807), is rightly de-

scribed by Reuss as " editio omnium quae extant specios-

issima." 2 His text was more or less faithfully followed by

1 Facsimile in SchafTs Companion.'- Facsimile of Ihe second edition, Halle and London, 1796, in SchaH s

Companion.

CHAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE I 5 1 4. 19

many later editors like Schott, Knapp, Tittmann, and also by

Theile.

Griesbach's opponent, Christian Friedrich Matthaei, a Matthaei.

Thiiringian (1744-1811), was misled into attributing a too

great value to a large number of manuscripts in Moscow of

the third, the Byzantine, class.

A considerable amount of critical material was collected at

the expense of the King of Denmark by Andreas Birch

(afterwards Bishop of Lolland, Falster, and Aarhuus), by

D. G. Moldenhauer, and by Adler.

A similar service was rendered, though not with sufficient

care, by J. M. Augustin SCHOLZ, Professor of Catholic

Theology in Bonn.

Literature.—On Matthaei see O. v. Gebhardt, Christian Friedrich

Matthai und seine Sammlung griechischerHandschriften, Leipzig, 1898.

It was Carl LaCHMANN (1793-1851) who first broke with Lachmann.

the Textus Receptus altogether. He was a master in the

domain of textual criticism. He distinguished himself first

in the department of classical and Teutonic philology, but

came afterwards to render equal service to the textual criti-

cism of the New Testament. His object was to restore the

text to the form in which it had been read in the ancient

Church about the year 380, going on the ground of the oldest

known Greek and Latin manuscripts, i.e. the oldest Eastern

and Western authorities. 1 He did not claim to go further

back than that date with any certainty. But it was still open

to question whether that were not possible, and whether the

grounds on which Lachmann's work was based might not be

still further extended and confirmed.

1 1. The task which Lachmann set before him was prose- Tischendori.

cuted with the most brilliant success in and from Germany byGottlob (Aenotheus) Friedrich Constantin von TlSCHENDORF(b. 18th January 181 5, d. 7th December 1874). In the course


20 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP I.

Trcgclles.

of several tours, first in Europe and afterwards in the East,

from the year 1841 onwards, he discovered and collated a

number of the most important and ancient manuscripts of

the Bible. Among these the most notable was the Codex

Sinaiticus, found by him on Mount Sinai in i8 S9, and now in

St Petersburg the oldest known manuscript of the present

day which contains the entire Greek New Testament. On

the basis of the material collected by himself and others,

Tischendorf prepared eight different editions between 1841

and 1872.1 His seventh edition, consisting of 3500 copies,

appeared in 1859, previous to the discovery of the Sinaiticus.

The text of this edition differed from that of 1849 m 1296

instances, of which no fewer than 595 were reversions to the

Textus Receptus. The text of the last edition, the octava

critica maior, which was issued complete in eleven parts

between 1864 and 1872, differed from that of the seventh in

3572 places The third volume of the editio octava maior,

containing the Prolegomena, was completed in three parts,

extending to 1428 pages, by Caspar Rene Gregory between

1884 and 1894, a work which affords the most complete survey

of what has been done on the Greek New Testament up to

the present time.

LlTERATURE.-Scrivener,ii.235;TiGr., 1-22; fW-49-5*- Apart

from the Editio Octava Maior, the most useful ed.tions will be found

to be those of O. v. Gebhardt (see below, p. 23), or the Editio Aca-

demica ad editionem oct. maior. conformata, Leipzig, Mendelssohn,

i6mo, 1855, twentieth edition, 1899.

While the editions of Tischendorf were appearing on the

Continent, an edition began to be issued in England which

was completed in the course of twenty years. It was the work

of a Quaker, Samuel Prideaux TREGELLES (b. 1813, d. 1875),

who, while reaping no profit from his undertaking, has left in

it a monument to his fidelity. In this edition ( 1857-1879)2

' Facsimiles of the edition of 1841, and the octava maior 1872, in Schafl's

Companion.a Facsimile in SchafTs Companion.

CHAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1 5 1 4. 21

Hort.

those passages in which the editor was unable to pronounce

a final judgment from the accessible material are indicated by

the form of the type.

A still more important advance was made by Brooke Foss Westcott and

WESTCOTT (b. 1825), now Bishop of Durham, and Fenton

John Anthony Hort (b. 23rd April 1828, d. 30th November1892). In 1881, these Cambridge scholars, after nearly thirty

years of joint labour, published two volumes, the first contain-

ing the Text with a brief survey of its history and resulting

criticism, the second giving a detailed exposition of their

critical principles by Hort himself. They were led by their

investigation to distinguish four main types of text :

—

(1) A late type, originating in Syria about the year 300,

which, issuing from Constantinople, became the prevailing

text in later manuscripts, and corresponds essentially with

the textus receptus of early printed editions:

(2) A type originating in Alexandria, characterized by lin-

guistic emendations

:

(3) A type originating in Syria but reaching the West pre-

vious to the year 200, represented essentially by the Old Latinversions on the one hand and by the Syriac on the other, anddisplaying all sorts of remarkable additions :

(4) The Neutral text, which displays no sort of corrup-

tions.

Westcott and Hort's work is the latest and most thoroughattempt yet made at a complete edition of the New Testament.Literature.— The New Testament in the original Greek. The

text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton JohnAnthony Hort, D.D., Cambridge and London. Vol. i. Text(Fourth Edition, 1898). Vol. ii., Introduction and Appendix(Third Edition, 1896). A smaller edition of the text, 1885. Text,from new type, in larger form, 1895. For "Some trifling Correc-tions to W.-H.'s New Testament," see Nestle in the ExpositoryTimes, viii. 479; ix . 9S) 333( 424 . See Life and Letters of F. /. A.Hort, by his son, A. F. Hort, 2 vols., London, 1896 ; also article onHort, by Gregory in the PRE', viii. 368. Facsimile of the AmericanEdition with Introduction by Schaff, in SchafTs Companion.

22 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. I. CHAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE I 5 14. 23

Weymouth. The "Resultant Greek Testament" of R. F. WEYMOUTH

affords a convenient comparison of the text of the most im-

portant editions.

Literature.-^ Resultant Greek Testament, exhibiting the text

in which the majority of modern editors are agreed, and containing

the readmgs of Stephen (.55°), Lachmann, Tregelles Tischendorf

Lightfoot, Ellicott, Alford, Weiss, the Bale edition (1880), Westcott

and Hart, and Die Revision Committee. By Richard Francs

Weymouth. With an Introduction by the Right Rev. the Lord

Bishop of Worcester. London, 1886. . . . Cheap Edition, 1892.

pp xix 644. Besides the editions mentioned in the title, the

Complutensian, Elzevir (1633), Scrivener and others are compared

in several places.

Weiss. Quite recently, Bernhard WEISS, of Berlin, began a new

and independent revision of the text, which has been

published in three large volumes with introduction and ex-

planatory notes.

Literature.—Das Neue Testament. Textkritische Untersuch-

ungen und Textherstellung von D. Bernhard Weiss. Erster Theil,

Apostelgeschichte : Katlwlische Briefe : Apocalypse. Leipzig, 1894.

Zweiter Theil, Diepaulinischen Briefe einschliesslich des Hebrderbnefs,

1896. Dritter Theil, Die vier Evangelien 1900. Vol. i. is compiled

from Texle und Untersuchungen, ix. 3, 4 Jviii. 3 ; vii. 1. The section

in vol. ii. entitled Textkritik der paulinischen Briefe, is taken from

TU. xiv. 3, and the corresponding section in vol. iii. from TU. xix. 2

(New Series, iv. 2). See " B. Weiss and the New Testament," by

C. R. Gregory in the American Journal of Theology, 1897, i. 16-37.

VunGcb- In Germany, O. von Gebhardt has done good service

hard.. by issuing the text of Teschendorf's last edition, with the

necessary corrections, and giving in the margin the readings

adopted by Tregelles and Westcott-Hort, when these differ

from the text. In the " editio stereotypa minor," the differ-

ences of Westcott-Hort alone are shown. In his Greek-

German New Testament, he also exhibits at the foot of

Luther's German text those readings wherein the text ol

Erasmus's second edition of 15 19, used by Luther, differs

from that of the last edition of Tischendorf. In this diglot

of v. Gebhardt, therefore, one can see at a glance not only

how far the Greek text of the present day differs from that

printed at the beginning of the sixteenth century, but also

the amount of agreement between present-day editors work-

ing on such different principles as Tischendorf and Westcott

and Hort. In the Adnotatio Critica found in the Appendixto the larger edition, there is a brief digest of the critical

Apparatus, but it extends only to those passages whereTischendorf and Westcott-Hort disagree. The editio minorcontains 600 pages. One of these, p. 501, shows not a single

disagreement between these great editors, while 18 pagesexhibit only one variation each, and these, for the mostpart, mere grammatical trifles.

Literature—Novum Testamentum Graece recensionis Tischen-

dorfianae ultimae textum cum Tregellesiano et Westcottio-Hortiano

contulit et brevi adnotatione critica additisque locis parallelis illustravit

Oscar de Gebhardt. Editio stereotypa. Lipsiae (Tauchnitz), 1881.

Seventh edition, 1896.

.A'". T. Graece et Germanice. Leipzig, 1881. Fourth edition,

1896. In this edition the Greek is that of Tischendorf 's last

edition, and the German is the Revised text of Luther (1870). Thevarious readings are shown for both texts, and a selection of parallel

passages is also given.

N. T. Graece ex ultima Tischendorfii recensione edidit Oscar deGebhardt. Editio stereotypa minor. Lipsiae, i6mo., 1887. Fourthedition, 1898.

The text of the Greek and Greek-German New Testa- Stuttgart

ments prepared by me, and issued by the Wiirttembere ?ew

tj.i i ... . , ,

' o testament.Bible Institute, is based on a comparison of the three editionsof Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, and Weymouth. The varia-tions of these editions are shown at the foot of the page,where are given also the readings inserted by Westcott andHort in their Appendix and omitted by O. v. Gebhardt.From Acts onwards, the readings adopted by Weiss areindicated as well. In a lower margin, a number of important


24

manuscript readings are given. In the Gospels and Acts,

these are taken mainly, though not exclusively, from Codex

Bezae. In the Greek-German edition, the text (German)

is that of the Revised Version of 1892. Below it are

given the readings of Luther's last edition (1546), with

several of his marginal glosses and earlier renderings.

Literature.—Novum Testamentum Graece aim apparatu critico

ex editionibus et libris manu scrip/is colhcto. Stuttgart, 1898.

Second corrected edition, 1899. Also issued in two and in ten

parts, and interleaved. Third edition in preparation.

Schjoti. Fr. SCHJOTT published an edition at Copenhagen in 1897

the text of which was determined by the agreement between the

Codex Vaticanus (Claromontanus, from Heb. ix. 14 onwards)

and the Sinaiticus. Where they disagreed he called in the

next oldest manuscript as umpire. For this purpose he

employed for the Gospels the manuscripts ACDEFHPK L P Q T U V X Z T A, for the Acts and Catholic Epistles

A C D E H K L P, for the Pauline Epistles A C D E F G

H L P, and for the Apocalypse A C P 1, 18, 38, 49, 92, 95.

At the foot of the text his edition gives, in two divisions, a

comparison with the Elzevir text and with that of Tischendorf-

Gebhardt (1894). From what source Schjott derived his

knowledge of the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus is not men-

tioned. The photograph of the former seems not to have

been employed.

Literature.— Novum Testamentum Grace ad fidem testium

vetusiissimorum recognovit necnon variances leciiones ex editiombus

Ekeviriana et Tischendorfiana subjunxit Fr. Schjott. Hauniae, 1897,

pp. xi. 562.

BMjon. The edition of J. M. S. Baljon is in the main an abridg-

ment of Tischendorf's octava maior. He avails himself, how-

ever, of later discoveries, such as the Sinai-Syriac Palimpsest

for the Gospels, and the Syriac version published by Gwynn

for the Apocalypse. In Acts, Blass's restoration of the so-

called Forma Romana is regularly indicated. No other edition,


for one thing, shows more conveniently where recent scholars

recognise glosses or other interpolations, or propose trans-

positions or conjectural emendations and such like. So far,

therefore, it may be commended to those who do not possess

an edition with a more copious critical apparatus. But even

Baljon's New Testament fails to realise the ideal of a

practical edition.

, Literature.—Novum Testamentum Graece praesertim in usum

studiosorum recognovit J. M. S. Baljon, Groningae, 1898, pp. xxiii.

731. The first 320 pages are also issued separately as Volumenpriinum continens Evangelia Matthaei, Marci, Lucae et Ioannis.

Vide Bousset in the Theologische Rundschau for July 1898.

From the Catholic side little has been done in Germany in Catholic

this department of scholarship for a long time. In 1821e "lons

Aloys Gratz reprinted the Complutensian at Tubingen ; while

Leander van Ess issued an edition which combined the

Complutensian and Erasmus's fifth edition.1 This also appeared

at Tubingen in 1827. Both of these contained the Vulgate,

and showed where recent editions gave a different text.

Reuss mentions two Synopses, one by Joseph GEHRINGER(Tubingen, 1842, 4"), the other by Fr. X. Patricius (Freiburg,

'853, 4°). and two small editions, one of which, by A. JAUMANN(Munich, 1832), was the first to be printed in Bavaria. Theother is by Fr. X. REITHMAYER (Munich, 1847), and closely

follows the text of Lachmann.There has also appeared recently at Innsbruck a Greek-

Latin edition in two volumes by Michael HETZENAUER, a

Capuchin. The first volume contains the Evangelium andthe second the Apostolicum. But as the strict Catholic is

bound by the decision of the Holy Office, Hetzenauer'sedition hardly falls to be considered here. A resolution of

1 Van Ess's edition was issued with two different title-pages. One of thesegives the names of the Protestant editors, Matthaei and Griesbach. But the otheromits the names together with the Notanda on the back of the title-page, so thatthe reader is left in the dark as to the meaning of the symbols Gb, M, etc., inthe margin. Most copies omit the Introduction, which contains the Pope'ssanction of the editions of Erasmus and Ximenes.

26 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. I.

ApucryphaandPseud-cpigrapha.

the Holy Office of 13th January 1897 pronounced even the

Comma Johanneum (1 John v. 7) to be an integral part of

the New Testament. This was confirmed by the Pope on

the 15th January, and published in the Monitore Eccksiastico

of the 28th February of the same year. An edition in Greek

and Latin was issued by BhaNDSCHEID at Freiburg in

1893-

It is impossible to enumerate here editions of separate

books of the New Testament. Many of these are in the form

of Commentaries. In addition to the works of Blass, to which

reference will be made later, mention may be made here of a

recent and most thorough piece of work—viz., The Gospel

according to St. Mark: The Greek Text, with Introduction

and Notes, by Henry Barclay Swete, D.D., pp. ex. 412

(London, Macmillan, 1898); also of The Gospel according to

St. Luke after the Westcott-Hort text, edited with parallels,

illustrations, various readings, and notes, by the Rev. Arthur

Wright: London, Macmillan, 1900; and of Hilgenfeld's edition

of the Acts in Greek and Latin. Berlin, 1899.

Nor can we enter particularly the field of early Christian

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Those who cannot obtain

Hilgenfeld's Novum Testamentum extra Canonem Receptum, or

Resch's Agrapha, or the editions of Tischendorf, Lipsius,

and Bonnet, will find a handy and inexpensive selection in

my Supplement to Gebhardt's editions of Tischendorf.

Literature.—Novi Testament! Graeci Supplementum editionilms

de Gebhardt-Tischendorfianis adcommodavit Eh. Nestle. Insunt

Codicis Cantabrigiensis Collatio, Evangeliorum deperditorum Frag-

menta, Dicta Salvatoris Agrapha, Alia. Lipsiae (Tauchnitz), 1896,

pp. 96.

There can be no question that in these last mentioned

editions which have been brought out at the end of the

nineteenth century, we have a text corresponding far more

closely to the original than that contained in the first editions

of the Greek New Testament issued at the beginning of the

sixteenth century, on which are based the translations into


modern languages used in the Christian churches of Europe

at the present time. It would be a vast mistake, however, to

conclude from the textual agreement displayed in these latest

editions, that research in this department of New Testament

study has reached its goal. Just as explorers, in excavating

the ruined temples of Olympia or Delphi, are able from the

fragments they discover to reconstruct the temple, to their

mind's eye at least, in its ancient glory—albeit it is actually

' in ruins—so too, much work remains to be done ere even all

the materials are re-collected, and the plan determined which

shall permit us to restore the Temple of the New TestamentScriptures to its original form.

CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 29

CHAPTER II.

MATERIALS OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THENEW TESTAMENT.

Even in the age of printing, and with all the security afforded

by that invention, it is not always easy or even possible to

exhibit or restore the literary productions of a great mind in

their original form. One has but to think of the obscurity in

which the works of Shakespeare and their early editions are

enveloped, or the questions raised over the Weimar edition

of Luther's works. And even when the author's original

manuscript is still preserved, but the proof-sheets, as is usual,

destroyed, we cannot always be certain whether occasional

discrepancies between the print and the manuscript are inten-

tional or not Nay, even when the two agree, there is still

the possibility that what the author wrote and allowed to be

printed was not what he thought or intended to be read. Did

Lessing, e.g., mean us to read in Nathan ii. 5, 493, "the great

man requires always plenty of room," or " the great tree " does

so ? Various writers, in speaking of this or that artist's talents

or dexterity, have used the words " haud impigre.'' To take

them at their word, the object of their praise had no such

endowment beyond the common. We may be certain that

what they meant to convey was the very opposite of what

they actually wrote, viz. " haud pigre " or " impigre." As a

rule, however, the purchaser of a modern classic may rely upon

reading it in the form in which the author intended it to be

circulated. It is quite different in the case of those works

which were composed at a time when their multiplication was

only possible by means of copying, and specially so in the

case of those that are older by a thousand years than the

invention of printing. For then every fresh copy was a fresh

source of errors, even when the copyist was as painfully exact

as it was possible for him to be. It is simply astonishing, in

view of all the perils to which literary works have been ex-

posed, to find how much has been preserved, and, on the1 whole, how faithfully.

The matter is, of course, quite a simple one, when by good Autographs

fortune the author's own manuscript, his autograph, is extant.

The abstract possibility of this being so in the case of the NewTestament writings cannot be denied. Thanks to the dryness

of the climate of Egypt and the excellence of ancient writing

material, we have documents more than twice the age that the

New Testament autographs would be to-day did we possess

them. Now and again we find a report circulated in the news-

papers that such an original document has been found,—of

Peter, e.g., or some other Apostle. About the year 489 it wasasserted that the original copy of Matthew had been discovered

in the grave of Barnabas in Cyprus. And to the eyes of the

devout there are still exhibited not only the Inscription fromthe Cross, but works from the artist hand of Luke. In reality,

however, we have no longer the autograph of a single NewTestament book. Their disappearance is readily understood

when we consider that the greater portion of the New Testa-ment, viz. the Epistles, are occasional writings never intendedfor publication, while others were meant to have only a limited

circulation. Even in the early ages of the Christian Church,when there must have been frequent occasion to appeal to

them, the autographs were no longer in existence.

Tertullian (Be rraescriptione Haereticorum, 36) mentions Thessa-lonica among the cities in which he believed the letters of theApostles that were addressed there were still read from autographcopies. 1 "Percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc

1 Zahn, Gcuhichtc dts. N.T. Kanom, i. 652 ; Einleitung, i. 153.

30 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II.CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 3'

cathedrae apostolorum suis locis praesident, apud quas ipsae authen-

ticae literae eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem et repraesentantes faciern

uniuscuiusque." But when the same author, in his De Monogamia,

speaks of " Graecum authenticum," he refers not to the autograph,

but to the original text as distinguished from a version.

On the copy of Matthew's Gospel found in the grave of Barnabas

in Cyprus, vide Theodorus Lector (Migne, 86, 189); Severus of

Antioch in Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, ii. 81 ; Vitae omnium 13

Apostolorum : Bappa/Jas 6 koi 'Iidotjs . . . outos to Kara Marpaioi'

cuayytXiov oiK£«i>x''ip (i,s ypai/'as iv Tjj tjJs Kinrpov yjjcrcj) Tfkclovrai. ' In

the Imperial Court Chapel the lessons were read from this copy on

Holy Thursday of every year. Fide Fabricius, £w. Apocr., 341.

On the supposed autograph of Mark in Venice see Jos. Dobrowsky,

Fragmentum Pragense Ev. S. Mara, vulgo autographi, Prague, 1778.

It is really a fragment of a Latin manuscript of the Vulgate, dating

from the seventh century, of which other fragments exist in Prague.

In the Chronicon Paschale there is a note on the reading rpiVij for

tKTr) in John xix. 14, to the following effect :—xaSuis ra axpi/Jij fti/J\ia

7repie'x" o.vto re to i8io'x«'poi' ToC (uay

y

cXicttov, oirtp fii^pi

tou I'd' Ti-cc^uXaKTai X"P'Tl ®l°v «" T?? E<£«criW ayiuiTarr] iKKkrjaia ko.1

1-0 tCiv TrKrrwv tVcicrf 7rpoo-Kwerrat. Bengel himself said on 1 John

v. 7 :—" Et tamen etiam atque etiam sperare licet, si non autographum

Johanneum, at alios vetustissimos codices graecos, qui hanc periocham

habeant, in occultis providentiae divinae forulis adhuc latentes, suo

tempore productum iri. (N.T. 420, 602, 770.)

In disproof of an alleged autograph of Peter, see Lagarde, Aus

dem deutschen Gekhrttnlcben, Gbttingen, 1880, p. 117 f. On legends

of this sort among the Polish Jews, on the autograph copy of the

Proverbs that Solomon sent to the Queen of Sheba, and now in the

possession of the Queen of England, etc., vide S. Schechter, Die

Hebraica in der Bibliothek des Britischen Museums, in the Jiidisches

Literatur-Blatt for 1888, No. 46.

At the Sixth Ecumenical Council of 680-1, which Hamack (DG.

ii. 408) says might be called the " Council of Antiquaries and Palaeo-

graphers", investigations were instituted in this department with some

success.

J.('.. Berger, Be Autographis Veterum, Vitenb., 1723. 4".

J. R. Harris, New Testament Autographs (Supplement to the

1 From the Cod. Monac. 255am! 551, published by Aug. Thcnn in the Zeitschri/t

fiirwissenschaftlitlie Theohgic 29 (1887), 453.

American Journal of Philology, No. 12), Baltimore, 1882. Withthree plates.

In this connection reference might be made to the falsifications of

Constantine Simonides : Facsimiles of certain portions of the Gospel ofSt. Matthew, and of the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, written onpapyrus of thefirst century. London, 1862. FoL

Seeing, then, that the autographs of the New Testament Manuscripts

books have all perished, we have to do as in the case of the

' Greek and Latin classics, viz. apply to later copies of them,the so:called manuscripts of which frequent mention hasalready been made. But while in the case of most literary

products of antiquity these manuscript copies are the onlysources whence we may derive our knowledge of them, weare happily more fortunate in regard to the New Testament.The new faith very early and very rapidly spread to distant Versions

peoples speaking other languages than that in which theGospel was first preached. Indeed, even in its native land ofPalestine, several languages were in use at the same time.Accordingly, at a very early date, as early as the second, andperhaps, in the case of fragments, even in the first century,there arose in the East, and in the South, and in the West,versions of the Christian books very soon after their composi-tion. At first only separate portions would be translated,but as time went on versions of the entire New Testamentmade their appearance. Manifestly, the value for our purposeof these versions depends on their age and accuracy. It is

impossible, without further knowledge, to be certain whethera Greek copyist of later centuries followed his original quitefaithfully or not. But a Latin version of the New Testamentwhich dates from the second century, e.g., will represent withtolerable certainty the second century Greek manuscript fromwhich it is derived, even supposing that our present copy ofthat version is not earlier than the sixth century or evenlater. But these versions confer yet another advantage. Inthe case of most, and certainly of the oldest Greek manu-scripts, we do not know in what country they originated.

32 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. U. CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 33

But it is quite certain that a Latin version could not have

originated in Egypt, or a Coptic version in Gaul. In this

way we may learn from the versions how the text of the

Bible read at a particular time and in a particular region.

Lastly, if it should happen that several versions originating

in quite isolated regions, in the Latin West, and in the

Syrian East, and in the Egyptian South, agree, then we

may be certain that what is common to them all must go

back to the earliest times and to their common original.

Quotations In addition to the Greek manuscripts and the versions, we

have still a third and by no means unimportant class of

material that we can employ in reconstructing our text of

the New Testament. We possess an uncommonly rich

Christian literature, which gathers volume from the second

half, or, at all events, from the last quarter of the first century

onwards. Now, what an early Church teacher, or, for that

matter, what any early writer quotes from the New Testa-

ment will have for us its own very peculiar importance, under

certain conditions. Because, as a rule, we know precisely

where and when he lived. So that by means of these patris-

tic quotations we are enabled to locate our ancient manuscripts

of the Bible even more exactly, and trace their history

further than we are able to do with the help of the vers.ons.

Here, of course, we must make sure that our author has

quoted accurately and not loosely from memory, and also

that the quotations in his book have been accurately pre-

served and not accommodated to the current text of their

time by later copyists or even by editors of printed editions,

as has actually been done even in the nineteenth century.

We shall now proceed to describe these three classes of

auxiliaries.

Literature —W. Wattenbach, Ankitung zur griechischen Palaeo-

graphie, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1877 ;V. Gardthausen, Griechische Palato-

graph*, Leipzig, 1879; Fr. Blass, Palaeographie, Biicherwesen, und

Handschriftenkunde, in I. v. Miiller's Handbuch der klass.schen

Alterthumswissenschaft, 2nd ed., vol. i., Munich, 1892; E. M.

Thompson, Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography, London,

1891 ; T. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, Berlin, 1882 ; W. A. Cop-

inger, The Bible and its Transmission ; F. G. Kenyon, Our Bible

and the ancient Manuscripts, London, third edition, 1897 ; F. H. A.

Scrivener, Six Lectures on the Text of the N.T. and the ancient

Manuscripts which contain it, Cambridge and London, 1875 ; ACollation of about 20 Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels, London,

1853 ; Adversaria critica sacra, Cambridge, 1893 ; Hoskier; Urt., pp.

,'<>> 54 5 O. Weise, Schrift- und Buchwesen in alter und neuer Zeit,

Leipzig (Teubner), 1899 (with Facsimiles: a popular work);F. G. Kenyon, The Palaeography of Greek Papyri, Oxford, 1899(with 20 Facsimiles and a Table of Alphabets, pp. viii., 160) ; Ulr.

Wilcken, Tafeln zur dlteren griechischen Palaeographie, Nach Origi-

nalendes Berliner K. Museums, Berlin and Leipzig, 1891 (with 20photographs) ; G. Vitelli e C. Paoli, Collezione Fiorentina difacsimili

paleografici greci e latini, Firenze, 1884-1897 (with 50 Greek Plates

and 50 Latin, Folio) ; Charles F. Sitterly, Praxis in Manuscripts ofthe Greek Testament : the mechanical and literary processes involved in

their writing and preservation (with table of Manuscripts and 13Facsimile Plates), New York and Cincinnati, 1898, second enlargededition, 1900 ; F. Carta, C. Cipolla e C. Frati, Monutnenta Palaeo-graphica sacra : Atlante paleografico-artistico composto sui manu-scntti, Turin, 1899 ; Karl Dziatzko, Untersuchungen iiber ausgewahlteKapitel des antiken Buchwesens. Mit Text, Uebersetzung und Erkla-rung von Plinii Histor. Nat, lib. xiiL § 68, 69, Leipzig, Teubner,1900.

i. Manuscripts.

For no literary production of antiquity is there such a Number of

wealth of manuscripts as for the New Testament. OurmanusctiPts -

classical scholars would rejoice were they as fortunate withHomer or Sophocles, Plato or Aristotle, Cicero or Tacitus,as Bible students are with their New Testament. The oldestcomplete manuscript of Homer that we have dates from thethirteenth century, and only separate papyrus fragmentsgo back to the Alexandrian age. All that is extant ofSophocles we owe to a single manuscript dating from theeighth or ninth century in the Laurentian Library at

C

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHA1*. II.

Uncial,

34

Florence But of the New Testament, 3829 manuscripts

have been catalogued up till the present. A systematic

search in the libraries of Europe might add still more to the

list• a search in those of Asia and Egypt would certainly

do so Gregory believes that there are probably some two

or three thousand manuscripts which have not yet been

collated, and every year additional manuscripts are brought

to light. Most of these are, of course, late, and contain only

separate portions, some of them mere fragments, of the New

Testament. 1 Not a few, however, go much further back than

our manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament and most of

the Greek and Latin Classics. Only in the case of the

Mohammedan sacred books is the condition of things more

favourable. These came into existence in the seventh

century and the variations between separate manuscripts

are a vanishing quantity, because the text of the Koran was

officially fixed at a very early date and regarded as inviol-

ably sacred. Fortunately, one might almost say, it is quite

different with the New Testament, which was put together

in a totally different way. In its case the very greatest

freedom prevailed for at least a century and a half.

The manuscripts of the New Testament being so numerous,

it becomes necessary to arrange them. One of the most im-

portant considerations hitherto has been that of age, and

therefore manuscripts have been divided into Uncials (or

Majuscules) and Cursives (or Minuscules), according to the

style of writing in use at earlier or later times.

In early times, as at the present day, inscriptions on monu-

ments and public buildings were engraved in capital letters.

This form of writing was also employed for books, especially

those containing valuable or sacred writing. The letters

were not joined together, but set down side by side.- They

• The most convenient survey of these is given in Vollert's Tabellen zur neutesta-

mentlichen Zeitgeschichle : mit einer Uebersicht titer die Cod.ces m denen d.e N.T.

SchrtenW sind." Leipzig, .897. Given in Sit.er.y (see above, p. 33)-

2 See«r.f. Plate I.


were called litterae viajusculae, capitales, ttnciales, i.e. " inch-

high," as Jerome says with ridicule

—

uncialibus ut vulgo aiunt and Cursive

litteris onera magis exarata quant codices. Alongside of this"p "

there arose, even previous to the Christian era, a smaller

Cursive form {Minusculae), for use in common life, in which

the letters were joined. 1 This running hand found its wayinto manuscripts of the Bible in the course of the ninth

century. In some cases, in Codex A e.g., both styles are

found alongside or following each other.2

The oldest Cursive manuscript of the New Testament, the

exact date of which is known, is 481 6TV; it bears the date

835. The great majority of New Testament manuscriptsbelong to this later date, seeing that out of the 3829 manu-scripts there are only 127 Uncials to 3702 Minuscules.Greek copyists not being accustomed to date their manu-scripts exactly, it becomes the task of palaeography to settle

the criteria by which the date and place of a manuscript'sorigin may be determined. These are the style of writing

—

whether angular or round, upright or sloping, the punctuation"

—whether simple or elaborate, and the different material andform of the book. These distinctions, however, are oftenvery misleading. The following table will show the distribu-tion of the manuscripts according to the centuries in whichthey were written, as given by Vollert, Scrivener, and vonGebhardt^:

—

IVth Century,

Vth „Vlth „Vllth „

VHIthIXth „Xth „

1 See e.g. Plate X.8 See Scrivener, i, p. 160 ; Rahlfs, Gollmger gt(ehrte Nathrichten, it

9**— 1 12.

» TiGr., pp. ,233 ff. ; Warfield, Textual Criticism of the N. T., p. 47.

Vollert.

36 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II.

,aPyrus and Manuscripts are distinguished according to the material on

parchment. which they are written, which may be either parchment or

paper.

Parchment" derives its name from Pergamum, where it was

introduced in the reign of King Eumenes (I97-IS9 B.C.).

But prior to the use of parchment, and to a certain extent

alongside of it, papyrus" was used, especially in Egypt,

down to the time of the Mohammedan Conquest. Papyrus

books were originally in the form of rolls (volumtna). Only

a few fragments of the New Testament on papyrus remain.

The use of parchment gave rise to the book or Codex form.

In the case of parchment codices, a further distinction is

drawn between those made of vellum manufactured from the

skins of very young calves, and those made of common parch-

ment from the skins of sheep, goats, and antelopes.

,w r As early as the eighth century (not the ninth), the so-called

cotton paper {charta bombycina) was introduced from the East

This, however, never consisted of pure cotton, but rather of

flax and hemp. It had been in use for a long time in China

and the centre of Eastern Asia, but seems to have been un-

known in Syria and Egypt till after the fall of Samarcand in

704. From the thirteenth century onwards, paper made of

linen was employed.

In the New Testament, both papyrus and parchment are

referred to. In 2 Tim. iv. 13, Paul asks that the ^eXoiw he

had left at Troas might be brought to him, and t* /3i/3\i'a,

but specially rif wfiplva* Here, frXow means cloak

rather than satchel ; t£ j8i/8X/a are the papyrus books, pos-

sibly his Old Testament, while -rar /ue/u/3pdraf are clean sheets

of parchment. 11 In 2 John 12 the word x<*PT 'l<:is used of

papyrus. There, and in 3 John 13.ro pilaris the ink, and

the KaXapo, {lot. canna) is the reed pen, still used for writing

in the East. The quill pen, strange to say, is not mentioned

prior to the time of Theodoric the Ostrogoth in the sixth

century. The size of a sheet of writing paper may be in-

» The references are to the extended notes at the end of this section, pp. 408".


ferred from the passages in 2nd and 3rd John alluded to

above.

I n order to economize space, the writing was continuous, Scriptio

with no break between the words (scriptio contlnua),' breath-

ings and accents being also omitted.* This is a frequent

source of ambiguity and misunderstanding. In Matt. ix. 18,

e.g., EIIEAOQN may be either eU i\6w or e!ae\dmi>. In

Mark x. 40, AAAOIIHTOIMAETAI was rendered "aliis

praeparatum," aXXoic being read instead of aXX' oh- In Matt,

xvi. 23, AAAA may be taken either as a\\a or aXX' a. In

1 Cor. xii. 28, again, the Ethiopic translator read out instead

of oGf. The Palestinian-Syriac Lectionary translates 1 Tim.

iii. 16 as though it were o/ioXoyou/ucc <Lc fiiyu to-riV. There

is something to be said for this, but Naber's proposed reading

of Gal. ii. 1 1, on Kariyvtofiev ot %v, cannot be accepted.

Most manuscripts show two columns to the page. The Columns.

Sinaitic, however, has four, while the Vatican has three.

Columns vary considerably in width. They may be the Lines.

width of a few letters only, or of an average hexameter line "

of sixteen to eighteen syllables or about thirty-six letters.

Such a line is called a rr-n'xoc, and as the scribe was paid

according to the number of trrlxot, we find at the end of

several books a note giving the total number ofaTi\oi contained

in them. In carefully written manuscripts, every hundredth,

sometimes every fiftieth o-n'x<>r is indicated in the margin.

These stichometric additions were afterwards adopted for the

entire Bible. Their value in many respects will be obvious. 1 '

As the church increased in wealth and prestige, New Testa-

ment manuscripts acquired a more sumptuous form, either

from the luxury of the rich or the pious devotion of kings

and churches. 1

Parchment, however, grew more and more expensive, and Palimpsests,

so the practice arose of using an old manuscript a secondtime. The original writing was erased by means of a spongeor pumice stone or a knife, and the sheets were then em-ployed to receive other matter, or it might even be the same


matter over again. And so we have Codices Reseriptl or

Palimpsest! as they were called, a term known to Cicero, who

says, though of a wax tablet, "quod in palimpsesto, laudo

parslmoniam (ad Diversos vii. 1 8). Some manuscripts were

used as often as three times for distinct works in three

different languages e.g. Greek, Syriac, and Iberian. Codex

lb

is one of these thrice used manuscripts, being written first

in Greek and then twice in Syriac.k

Punctuation. Marks of punctuation are hardly to be found in the earliest

times. It was frequently, therefore, a question with church

teachers whether a sentence was to be taken interrogatively

or indicatively, or how the sentences were to be divided, as

in the case of John i. 3 and 4. In the general absence of

punctuation, the appearance of quotation marks in some of

the oldest manuscripts, like Codex Vaticanus e.g., to indicate

citations lrom the Old Testament, is remarkable. 1

Size. The size of a manuscript varies from a large folio, which in

the case of a parchment codex must have been very ex-

pensive, to a small octavo. In regions inhabited by a mixed

population we find bilingual manuscripts, Greek-Latin, Greek-

Coptic, Greek-Armenian, and such like. If the manuscript

was designed for use in church, the two languages were

written in parallel columns, the Greek frequently occupying

the left column or reverse side of the sheet, being the place of

honour. In manuscripts intended for use in schools, the

translation was written between the lines. Codex A is an ex-

ample of a manuscript with an interlinear version of this sort.

Contents. Of more importance is the distinction of manuscripts ac-

cording to their contents. Of all our recorded Uncials, only

one contains the whole of the New Testament complete.

That is the Codex Sinaiticus discovered by Tischendorf in

1859. A few others, like Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus,

Ephraemi, were once complete, but are no longer so. Of

the later Minuscules, some twenty-five alone contain the

entire New Testament. Of the English Minuscules, five are

complete. The fragmentary nature of our manuscripts is

CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OK CRITICISM. 39

intelligible on two grounds. One is that a New Testament

codex written in uncial characters is a very bulky and

ponderous volume running to about 150 sheets. Compara-tively few would be in a position to procure such a costly

work all at once. The other reason is that the New Testa-

ment itself is not a single book, but a series of different

collections, which at first, and even afterwards, were circulated

separately. To the same reason is due the great variety in

1 the order of the several parts of the New Testament found in

the manuscripts, and still, to a certain extent, in our printed

editions."1

It is not exactly known who it was that first

collected and inscribed in one volume the books and the

parts that now make up the New Testament. Such a single

volume of the entire New Testament was afterwards knownas a iravSeKTw, a°d in Latin, bibliotheca." The parts into

which the New Testament is divided are—

1. The four Gospels.

2. (a) The Acts of the Apostles.

(b) The so-called Catholic Epistles, i.e. those not ad-

dressed to any particular church or individual,

viz., James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John,

Jude.

3. The thirteen Pauline Epistles, or, including Hebrews,fourteen.

4. The Apocalypse.

Among these incomplete manuscripts of the New Testa- Lectionaries.

ment may be classed the so-called lectionaries— i.e. manu-scripts containing only those portions read at church services.

Following the custom of the Synagogue, in which portions ofthe Law and the Prophets were read at divine service eachSabbath day, the practice was early adopted in the ChristianChurch of reading passages from the New Testament booksat services. A definite selection of such extracts was formedat an early date from the Gospels and Epistles, and thecustom arose of arranging these according to the order of

40 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 4«

Sundays and Holy days, for greater convenience in use. A

collection of selected passages from the Gospels was called

a EJayye'Xioi/, and in Latin Evangeliarium? in distinction to

the books containing the continuous text, which were called

TeTpaevayyeXiov, while the selections from the Epistles were

known as ' AttoVtoXoc or Ilpagair6<rTo\o<;. These lectionaries,

though mostly of later origin, are nevertheless important as

indicating the official text of the various provinces of the

Church. They show, moreover, how sundry slight alterations

found their way into the text of the New Testament.

We can easily understand why it is that manuscripts of the

Gospels are by far the most numerous, while those of the last

book of the New Testament are the fewest. Among the

Uncials, 73 contain the Gospels, and only 7 have the Apoca-

lypse. Of these 73 Uncials, again, only 6, viz. (i B K M S U,

or, if we include «, only 7 are quite complete ; 9 are almost

so; 11 exhibit the greater part of the Gospels, while the

remainder contain only fragments. Of the 20 Uncials of the

Pauline Epistles, only 1 is entirely complete—viz., K ; 2 are

nearly complete, D G ; 8 have the greater part. It is plain

that our resources are not so great, after all, as the number of

manuscripts given above would lead us to expect. Here

also there are iroXXoi k\>itoI, oX/yoi «XeicToi.

The manufacture of parchment is perhaps older than that of

Parchment, papyrus. It is said to owe both its name and wide circulation as

writing material to the encouragement given to its manufacture by

Eumenes II. of Pergamum (i97-«59 B.C.). Pliny's story,2 which he

gives on the authority of Varro, is that Eumenes wished to found a

library which should, as far as possible, excel that of Alexandria.

To frustrate this intention Ptolemy Epiphanes prohibited the expor-

tation of papyrus to Asia Minor. (In the list of principal exports of

Alexandria, Lumbroso 8 mentions /3i'/JAo! and x^V in the second

> To obviate confusion, it would be well to use the Latin name Evangeliarium.

Eio77«AiffTi/>.oK means a Table of Lections. (See Brightman, in theJournal 0/

Theological Studies, 1900, p. 4481 and now Gregory, Textirilit, i. p. 334 f.)

1 Nat. Hist., xiii. II.

'' Egitto, 2nd ed., p. 125.

place after UXta, and fitfiXia in the seventh.) Eumenes was accord-

ingly obliged to prepare parchment at Pergamum, and hence its

name, irepya/iijnj. The name first occurs in Diocletian's Price-

list,1 and in Jerome. The word used in earlier times was Si(f>0ipai,

2 or

oVpptw,3 or /«/i/?paVai as in 2 Tim. iv. 13, which last was taken from

the Latin. At first parchment was less valuable than papyrus, and

was used more for domestic and school purposes than for the

making of books, as the writing was easier erased from the skin.

, But it gradually supplanted papyrus, and with its employment came

also the change from the roll to the "codex" form of book. If

papyrus was the vehicle of Pagan Greek literature, parchment was

the means whereby the literature of the new faith became known to

mankind, and the remnant of the ancient culture at the same time

preserved. Origen's library, which still consisted for the most part

of papyrus rolls, was re-written in parchment volumes (o-iD/xanoc,

corpus) by two priests shortly before the time of Jerome. Ourprincipal manuscripts of Philo are derived from one of these codices. 4

When Constantine ordered Eusebius to provide a certain number of

Bibles for presentation to the churches of his Empire, he sent him,

not rolls, but Codices, Tm-nJKoyra o-bi/xarta iv 8i<t>8<pais.

Parchment was prepared from the skins of goats, sheep, calves,

asses, swine, and antelopes. Our oldest manuscripts of the Bible ex-

hibit the finest and whitest parchment. The Codex Sinaiticus, e.g.,

displays the very finest prepared antelope skin, and is of such a size

that only two sheets could be obtained from one skin. As a rule,

four sheets were folded into a quire (quaternio), the separate sheetshaving been previously ruled on the grain side. They were laid

with the flesh side to the flesh side, and the grain side to the grain

side, beginning with the flesh side outermost, so that in eachquaternio, pages i, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16 were white and smooth with

1 Vide Th. Mommsen, Das Diokletianische Editt iibtr die Warenpreise(Hermes, xxv. 17-36, 1890) ; on the fragments recently discovered in Mega-lopolis, see W. Loring, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1890, 299; also, RevueArchiologique, Mars-Avril, 1891, 268.

Herodotus v. 58. On the connection of litera and lupeipa, see M. BrealRev. dts Et. grecques, iii. 10, 1890, 121 ff., and Rev. Crit., 1892, 13. InCyprus the schoolmaster was called the Si00fp<ixoi0o>.

• CJ. Codex D, Mark i. 6.4Cf. Victor Schultze, Rollt und Codex, in the Greifcwalder Studien, Gutersloh

1895, p. 149 ff.

42 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 43

Ink.

bPapyrus.

the lines showing in relief, while the others, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14. «S

were darker and rough, with indented lines. 1

For writing on papyrus, ink made of soot was employed. Three

parts of lamp black were mixed with one part of gum and diluted

with water. This ink, however, was easily washed off, and did not

stick well to parchment, and therefore recourse was had to ink made

of gall nuts. Sulphate of iron was afterwards added to it, with the

result that the writing material is frequently corroded with the ink.

From its having been boiled the mixture was also called cy»cav<m»',

hence our word " ink " (encre). Many old recipes for making ink are

still preserved.2 Even in early Egyptian writing, coloured inks,

specially red, were used. One of the most beautiful manuscripts

extant is a Syriac Codex in the British Museum, of date 4r 1, in which

the red, blue, green, and yellow inks are still quite fresh. Eusebius

used cinnabar for numbering the paragraphs, and Jerome makes

mention of minium or vermilion. In times of great wealth

parchments were dyed purple and inscribed with gold and silver

letters.

Among ancient writers, Pliny gives the fullest description of the

preparation of papyrus, in his Hisloria Naturalis, xiii. n.3 The

sheets were prepared, not from the bark, but from the pith of the

plant. This was cut into strips (<rx'8a? )as tmn and Droa(1

>arld

.

1 Vide C. R. Gregory, Sur let cahiers des manuscrits greet, Academic des

Inscriptions, Aug. 1885 ; Berliner Phil. Wochenschrift, 1886, v. 159 ff.

2 Eg. in Cod. Barocc. I in the Bodleian, and in several Syriac manuscripts.

3 Vide G. Ebers, Kaiser Hadrian: also The Writing Material of Antiquity,

by Ebers, in the Cosmopolitan Magazine, New York, Nov. 1893 ; and especially

Dziatzko (see above, p. 33). On the papyrus plant (C) penis papyrus L., Papyrus

Antiquonim Willd.), see Bernard de Monllaucon, Dissertation star la plante ap-

pelfe Papyrus, sur Ic papier d'Egypte, etc. Memoires de l'Acadfmie Royale des

Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, T. vi. Paris, 1729, 4to., pp. 592-608 ;Franz

Woenig, Die Pflanzen im alien Aegypten, ihre Heimat, Gesehiehte, Aullur,

Leipzig, 1886, pp. 74-129. J.Hoskyns-Abrahall pointed out that it is found in

Europe, not only in the neighbourhood of Syracuse in Sicily, but also on the

shores of Lake Trasimenc : see The Papyrus in Europe, in the Academy, 19th Mar.

1887. Lagarde raised a question as to the etymology of the word papyrus (which

has not yet been explained), whether it might not be derived from Bura on Lake

Menzaleh, where it was first manufactured, pa being the article in Egyptian ; see

his Mitteilungen, ii. 260. If this is so, there is the more reason for pronouncing

the y long, as ancient writers did, and not short as the modern fashion is—

papyrus, not pipyrus. Cf. Juvenal, iv. 24 ; vii. 101 ; Mart. iii. 2 ;viii. 44

;

x. 97. Catull. xxxv. 2. Ovid, Met. xv. 753; Trisl. iii. 10, 27.

according to some, as long as possible. These were laid side by

side as firmly as might be, to form the first layer (o-xc'Sa). On this a

second layer was laid crosswise and fastened to the lower with

moisture or gum. The two layers were then compressed to form

the writing sheet (o-eX/s), which was carefully dried and polished

with ivory or a smooth shell. The roll (to/uk, KvKwSpos) consisted

of a number of atXiSa joined together to make one long strip

—

sometimes as much as 20 or 40 feet long, or even longer. The

upper side, the side used for writing on, was the one in which the

fibres ran in a horizontal direction parallel to the edge of the roll.1

The under or outer side was only used in cases of necessity. 2 The

first sheet (wp<dt6koWov) was made stronger than the rest, and its

inner edge was glued to a wooden roller (o/i^aAos), with a knob at

the end («'pas). The margin of the roll, what corresponds to the

edge of our books, was frequently glazed and coloured, while the

back was protected against worms and moths by being rubbed with

cedar oil. The title was inscribed on a separate label of parchment

(rWfni/Jos or o-i'AAu/?os). The separate rolls were enclosed in a

leather case (SitfrOipa or ^airo'Xi/s, see 2 Tim. iv. 13), and a number

of them kept in a chest (<<i/}<dto's or kio-ttj).

On the literature cf. also Paul Kriiger, Ucbcr die Verwendung von

Papyrus und Pergament fiir die juristische Litteratur der Rbmer,

Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fiir Rechtsgeschichte. Roman section,

viii. pp. 76-85 (1887). Wilcken, Archivfiir Papyrus-Forschung undverwandte Gebiete, Leipzig, Teubncr. F. G. Kenyon, Palaeography

of Greek Papyri. C. Haeberlin, Griechische Papyri, Leipzig,

1897: "Nearly 150 years have fled since 432 complete Rolls and1806 Papyrus Fragments were discovered in the year 1752 at

Herculaneum, in the Villa of L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, the

pupil and friend of the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus. Thentwenty-five years later the soil of Egypt, that home and nursery of

literature, opened for the first time to vouchsafe to us a GreekPapyrus Roll, destined to be the forerunner of a series of discoveries

often interrupted but never ceasing altogether. It was, perchance,not the only one of its kind ; but out of the fifty rolls accidentally

1 See U. Wilcken, Keeto odcr Verso, Hermes, 1887, 487-492.a Apoc. v. 1 can no longer be cited in support of this practice, seeing we must

take «oi urifffftr with xarttrippajHrittyov, according to Grotius and Zahn. Oniwitti6ypa<t>»; cf. Lucian, Vitarum Audio, 9 ; Pliny, 3, 5 ; a tergo Juvenal,1,6; in averta ehar/a, Martial, 8, 22.

c

Taper.

Lead.

discovered in the year 1778 by Arabian peasants in the neighbour-

hood of Memphis, it alone had the fortune to come into the

possession of Cardinal Stefano Borgia. The rest were burned by

their unsuspecting discoverers, who found a peculiar pleasure in the

resinous odour that arose from their smoking pyre."

The collection of manuscripts brought from the East by the Arch-

duke Rainer gave a stimulus to the study of the early history of

paper-making, and at the same time supplied the materials for a more

exact investigation of the subject than had previously been possible.

Earlier works, therefore, like that of G. Meerman, De Chartae

vulgaris sen lineae Origine, ed. J. v. Vaassen, Hagae Comitum, 1 767,

have been superseded. The manufacture of paper seems to have

been introduced into Europe by the Moors in Spain, where it went

by the name of pergameno de panno to distinguish it from the perga-

meno de cuero. In the Byzantine Empire it was called (v\oxdpru>v or

(vkortvKTov, as being a vegetable product It came afterwards to be

known as x^P7^ Aa/xao-KTji'os, from its chief place of manufacture.

The Arabs introduced it into Sicily, whence it passed into Italy.

After 1235, we find paper mentioned as one of the exports of Genoa.

European paper is distinguished from that of Eastern manufacture

chiefly by the use of water marks, such as ox-heads, e.g., which were

unknown in the East. Older sorts of paper bear a great resemblance

to parchment. The Benedictine monks, who owned the fragments

of Mark's Gospel preserved in Venice, asserted that they were

written on bark. Montfaucon declared the material to be papyrus.

Massei said it was cotton paper. But the microscope shows it to be

parchment. In many manuscripts a mixture of parchment and

paper is found. This is so in the Leicester Codex, in which the

leaves are regularly arranged in such a way that the outer and inner

sheets of a quire are of parchment, while the three intermediate

sheets are of paper. See J. R. Harris, The origin of the Leicester

Codex of the New Testament, 1887, p. 14 ff.

Lead was also employed in early times for writing on. Budde

sees a reference to this practice in the well-known passage, Job xix.

24. He holds that the lead there mentioned is not to be supposed

as run into letters cut out in the rock, which would be a very un-

likely thing to do, and a practice for which there is no evidence.

He would therefore correct the text so as to read "with an iron

pen on lead." Hesiod's "Epyo, e.g., was preserved on lead in the

temple of the Muses on Helicon. 1 A leaden tablet from Hadrumetcontains an incantation showing strong traces of O.T. influence.2

At Rhodes there was recently discovered a roll of lead inscribedwith the 80th Psalm, which was used as a charm to protect avineyard. 3

Clay and brick were also used as writing material, a fact which Clay.

Strack has omitted to mention in his article on Writing in theRealencyklopadie (see Ezek. iv. 1). So far, however, no traces ofN.T. writing have been discovered in the Ostraca literature ofwhich we have now a considerable quantity. We have tiles of thissort dating from a period of over a thousand years from the time ofPtolemy Philadelphus onwards, inscribed with ink and a reed pen.Several of these contain portions of literary works suijh as those ofEuripides.4

Linen was also written on. s It was used, e.g., for the Sibylline Linen.Oracles (lintea texta, carbasus : Orac. Sib. ed. Alexandre, ii., 159,178, 189). But up to the present no N.T. writing has been foundon linen.

On Paul's "books and parchments," see Zahn, Kanon ii., 938 ff. dI am not aware if J. Joseph takes up this point or not in his La J/^'

5. „

Bibliotheque de l'Apotre Paul (Chretien Evang., 1897, v. 224-227).In the Theol. Tijdschrift, 1898, p. 217, the view that the /ic/t/Sparai

Paul sent for were blank sheets of parchment is called in question.The most natural explanation, certainly, is that they were.The N.T. makes no mention of the metal, wood, or bone stilus. e

By "the wild beast of the reeds" (Ps. Ixviii. 31) the Rabbis under- Pen -

stood the reed pen, which in Syriac also is commonly denoted byi"Op, and they took it as referring to Rome and the Emperor, whodecided the fate of nations with a single stroke of his pen.8 Luther,moreover, was not without precedent in speaking of "governorswith the pen" in Jud. v. 14, as the Syriac version renders it in thesame way. In Ps. xlv. 2, the Hebrew [fly is rendered koAo^os (LXX),<rX<m<OT (Aquila), and ypafalov (Symmachus). It is also rendered

1 Pausanias, ix. 31, 4.a Dcissmann, Bibehtudien, 26-54.' Hiller von Gaertringen, Berl. Sitz.-Ber., 21st July 1898.1 See Wilcken, Verein von Alterttumsfrtundtn im Rheinland. Heft Ixxxvi

p. 234 ; also the Berl. Phil. Wochcnschrift, 1889, 26.• Cf. Livy, B. iv. c 7 ; Pliny, xiii. 11, "postea publica monumenta plumbeis

volummibus niox et privata link-is coiifici coepta sunt."• Jiidiuhes Literaturblatt, 1889, 10.

46GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 47

™* by the translator of Jeremiah vih. 8, "here A^.U ha.

Si. **** m-t therefore be added to the B.bto name

foTpen. TpatU for ypa+.tbv, mentioned alongs.de ofo^ ofa^r.^

in Jer. xvii. ,, seems to belong to the Spanish-Greek of the

Complutensian, but is really classic, as also >ts ^™£+*£According to the Rabbis, pens were among the things God

made in the evening of the last day of the creation. They were

also venerated by the Egyptians and the Greeks as an nven-

tion of the Deity.' According to Antisthenes* or Democntus,' a

young man, in order to enter the school of wisdom, require, to

have a /StfWbv «au™ ( = «»l ,o5) *al ypa+vov k«t kuc ™«Ao»

KMvov In Cyprus, the stilus is called «A*.imjp.oF, and the

ZûJls in like manner J**^.**.' In the recently

discovered fragments of Diocletian's Z»/ 0/ »F«w, the section *«pc

.Xo^c (goose, swan, and peacock feathers, is followed.by that

^pl KaX^v «ri /..Xa^'ou, and then by that »«» «r%<* Ink costs

i 2 drachmae the quart; Paphian and Alexandrian KoXaFo, cost

4 drachmae; and K.iAa/xoi Se^'pas] ^Jrf/up] the same Baruch,

the <i,ayrwT*, purchased ink and a pen in the market of the

Gentiles, in order to write his letter to Jeremiah (.mrata .«

TV dyopav [V. 1. Wrropa,] r&< IM» W" X<V"." «~ ^£A

fva

rv 1 u«Xw])« Demosthenes was not the only possessor of a silver

stilus. Boniface, e.g., had one of that sort sent him from England.

Readinc and The following is a list of expressions relating to reading and wr.t-S ing taken from the Greek Versions of the O.T. It makes no claim

to be complete. The passages will be found in Hatch and Redpath s

Concordance to the Septuagint.

d^/Sou., ivaytyv^^, fr<£ywxr«, toayvnnfr, aynypaôv, arroKa-

Xwr«v; WXu&p* (^W), 0#W. ^X.oypô, (Est. ,,i. 13,

Complut.), jSi/SAxo^mj, /?./3XiV (/8v), 0.0W»Woi', /J./JXos (jBv-)

;

1 C/ the verses inscribed on a marble tablet discovered in Andros by Ross in

1844 :

—

ln t,jyi, xpvffoBpoyot lens . • •

i<pa\*wr "t-pfifos iirifitpuô aipfaha tfKray

t (,f6iifvaypa<pi$'<T(rn> fi T-' Hvai *S<ri X'pM"

0p(KoA/oi' fiiarais Uph* \4yov . . • •

2 9ee Nestle, Bciigtl, p. 105.

' Zeilschri/t fiir das Humanistische Gymnasium, 1896, p. 27.

4 O. Hoffmann, Gritihischt DialtkU, i. 107.

» Probably pens of the first quality—j»oi-e7<Wrei.

« Harris, Last Words of Baruch, vi. 17, p- 5°

ya£d, ypdfifia, ypa/ifiartia, ypa/i./tarcvW, ypap.p.aT(v<;, ypafi/xaTinos, ypap>

/laroturayutytvt, ypairruv, ypafaiv (ava-, uiro-, fVi-, Kara-, <tw-), ypatfruov

(rriSr/poui-), ypatptvs (Ta^tfos), ypaiprj (am-, O7T0-, ow-), ypa<pK(ds, ypaîs;hi<p6ipu>fta, StdiKtiv; tl\.T)fM, tit- or t'kxapormi', tVio-roXr;, ip/tyi-two,

<7T!o-tu'/«tos ypd/i/iaTa; Ot}<ravpo<t>vka£ ; KiiXa/tot (KaXa/tapioc, wifcField's Hexapla on Ezek. ix. 2) raV™, «c«paAis

; /uax&i/*, /it'Aai',

/MAayorSoxtiW, /u'Xtos, /u<rj/ud<rwoi', /xoAt/?os, /xoXi'/JrWos; £i'/x»'s ; oVu£

aoa/iaiTifot, ofvypaVpot ; mramc, n-iraxtoW, 71-rvf, 7rru^)J, irv£tov ; o-fXiV,

oyuXr/, (rTijKoypatfiia, tr^tpayiûv, (nftpayis, trxoivot ; to'/ios (âprou xaiKOv/mvoAou, Isa. viii. 1 ; also 1 Esdras vi. 23 for to'ttos), t«Oxo«, twos

;

Xapnjs, âprlov, xapTrjpia.

Ancient Homeric grammarians used to debate whether contiguous f

letters were to be read as one word or not. To obviate misunder- Diastole a"d

standing, they employed the vrroSuio-roAr; as the mark of divisionhyphen '

(o, t«, e.g.), and the wf,' b> as the mark of combination (bimgcovpoi,not Arot KoCpoi). Such marks are also found in manuscripts of theBible, in the Septuagint, e.g., in the case of proper names. It goeswithout saying that the scriptio continua made the reading as well asthe copying of manuscripts a matter of some difficulty. Hernias(Visio ii. 1) says of the book given him to copy /xeTeypafi^v vavrairpos ypdfifM- oix rfipurmv yap tos rrwAAoôs. 1 For two instructivemistakes in the Latin interlinear version of Codex Boernerianussee p. 77.

Breathings and accents were found in various manuscripts of the cBible as early as the time of Epiphanius and Augustine. In our Brea,6'ngs

oldest manuscripts they seldom occur before the seventh century.^ aCCe" tS '

They were inserted by the first hand of the Ambrosian Hexateuch<Swete's F), which is ascribed to the first half of the fifth century byCeriani. They seem to have been added to the Codex Vaticanusby the third hand, probably in the twelfth century, and do not alwaysconform to our rules. Augustine, commenting on the rival readingsfiliis and porcina, in Psalm xvi. 14, says : "quod (porcina) alii codiceshabent et verius habere perhibentur, quia diligentiora exemplaria peraccentus notam eiusdem verbi graeci ambiguitatem graeco scribendimore dissolvunt, obscurius est " (li. 504-5, in Lagarde's Probe einerneuen Ausgabe, p. 40). Similarly, speaking of the difference betweenpdfiSov airov and pdfi&ov airov, Gen. xlvii. 31, he says :—"fallit enimeos verbum graecum, quod eisdem Uteris scribitur sive eius sive suae

;

1 Vide Hamack, T. und U., ii. 5, p. 68.

Abbreviation.

Divisions.

sed accentus [ = spiritus] dispares sunt et ab eis qui ista^noverunt, in

codicibus non contemnuntur » (iv. 53 ed. Lugd. .586, cited by

SC

TV

he

ne

practice

4

of abbreviating words of frequent occurrence like

©2, X2, ANOTgoes back to very early times. So, too, does the use

of letters as numerals, I for 10, etc.

In dividing syllables the Greek copyists in general observed the

rule of beginning each new line with a consonant, A good many

exceptions occur however, especially in the Vaticanus, most of

which have been corrected by a later hand. These are indicated u,

the third volume of Swete's edition of the LXX. A good instance

of this is seen in Jer. xiv. 12, where the Vaticanus and Marchahanus

both originally had npcr ev<r™ which in the former is corrected

to *Po ^.v, and in the latter to .port vcy^.v For examples

from the O.T. portion of the Codex Vaticanus see Nestle s Septua-

trintasludien, ii. 20.

h Carefully written manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments are

Stichometry. provided with a system of stichometry just as occurs in the better

manuscripts of the classics, as e.g. Herodotus and Demosthenes In

the N T. it is found specially in those Pauline Epistles that go back

to the recension of Euthalius. One of the writers of the Codex

Vaticanus has copied, in several of the books of the O.T. the sticho-

metric enumeration which he found in his original, and the numbers

show that the manuscript he copied contained almost twice as much

matter in a line as the one he himself wrote. See Nestle, Septua-

gintastudien, ii. 20 f.

; Lagarde, Die Stichometrie der syrtsch-hexa-

plarischen Uebersetzung des alien Testaments (Mitteilungen, iv

205-208). On the stichometrie list in the Codex Claromontanus of

the Pauline Epistles (D2),see p. 76.

American scholars have counted the number of words in the Greek

N T In Matthew the number is 18,222, in Mark 11,158, in Luke

,9,209. Unfortunately, I am unable to give the total number in the

NT See SchafTs Companion, pp. 57, 17°-

Graux (Revue de Philologie, ii.) has counted not only the words

but the letters in the various books. The numbers are given in

Zahn's Geschkhte des N.T. Kanons, i. 76. They are as follows :-

Matthew,

Mark,

Letters.

89> 295

55.55°

Stichoi.

2480

'543

Luke,

John,

Acts,

3 John, .

Apocalypse,

For Philemon, Zahn gives

Letters.

97.714

70,210

94,000

1,100

46,500

'.5$7

Stichoi.

2714

19502610

31

1292

44

In this last epistle I find that my edition has 1538 letters, or in-

cluding the title 1550. The lines in my edition happen to coincideas near as may be with the ancient stichoi. 41 stichoi at 36 letters

to the stichos would give a total of 1476. Now in the 41 completelines which my edition gives to Philemon I find 1469 letters,

that is, only 7 fewer. In Jude, again, Graux enumerates 71 stichoi,

while my edition shows exactly 70 lines or 71 with the title. Forstichometrie calculations, therefore, this edition will prove veryconvenient.

For a "Table of Ancient and Modern Divisions of the NewTestament," see Scrivener, i. 68 ; also Westcott, Canon, Appendix D,xix., xx. ; Bible in the Church, Appendix B, 4.

The Cola and Commata were quite different from the stichoi. Cola andThe length of the latter was regulated according to the space (space-

com"mata -

lines), that of the former by the sense and structure of the sentence(sense-lines). On cola and commata see Wordsworth and White,De eolis et commatibus codicis Amiatini tt editionis nostrae, in theEpilogus to their edition of the Vulgate, i. pp. 733-736. On thestichometry proper see Ibid., p. 736, De stichorum numeris ineuangeliis.

Solomon perfumed with musk the letter he sent to Bilqis, Queen '

of Sheba, who herself could both read and write. 1 Mani inscribed ^"^"P'5

characters on white satin in such a way that if a single thread was" "^

drawn out the writing became invisible. 2 On gold and silver writingamong the Syrians see Zahn, Tatian, Forschungen, 108, n. 1 ; alsoR. Wessely, Iconographie (Wiener Studien, xii. 2, 259-279).

'

Theearliest mention of this kind of writing that I know is in the EpistleOf Aristeas, 3 <™ . . . rati Suupopo* SiWpoK, iv afc [>] ^ vop>0t<rlayeypa^ivr, XP^oypatpif. toIs 'IovSoXkoU ypafifuuri, OavfUHrw tlpyairpivov

1 Socin, Arabic Grammar, 2nd ed., p. 55, line 14 ; p. 56, line 12.' ZdmG., xliii. 547.* Konstantin Oikonomos, »<pl rw if Ifprivixnvv, Bk. iv. p. 975.

D

5°GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 51

^ In Alexander's copy of the Pentateuch the name of (,od ».s

written in gold letters.1

On the fineness of the parchment and the beauty of the writing

see Chrysostom, Horn. 32 in Joannem : 0™% ^ r^ ™v »r»XcminA Koi ro™^r* kAXot . Ephraem Syrus commended

this Christian munificence, as is pointed out in the Htstor. Poltt.

Blatter, 84, 2, 104. Gold writing is also mentioned in the Targum

""•The passage in the Epistle of Theonas to Lucian referring to the

use of purple-dyed parchment is thought by Batiffol to be derived

from that in Jerome's Commentary on Job, and he founds on this

an argument against the genuineness of the Epistle. In the

Martyrium of Qardagh the Persian, particular mention is made of the

remarkable beauty and whiteness of the parchment (nyiono.-) on

which he wrote his epistles.3

For the preparation of his Bible, Origen procured the services not

only of rapid writers Kvyô.) but also of girls who could write

beautifully (koAAiwôi). Cassiodorus pleads-qui emendare prae-

sumitis, ut superadjectas literas ita pulcherrimas facere studeat.s ut

notius ab Anti./uariis scriptae fuisse judicentur." We also find him

making proposals for expensive bindings in the De lust., c 30 a

passage which, according to Springer,' has been overlooked in the

literature on illustrated bindings in modern histories of art.

On various decorated manuscripts see W. Wattenbach, Ueber die

wit Gold auf Purfur geschriebene Evangelien-handschrift der Hamil-

tonschen Bibliolhek, in the Berliner Sitz.Ber., 7th March 1889, xni.

141-156 Cf Berl. Phil. Wochenschrift, 1889, 33, 34- This manu-

script purported to be a gift to Henry VIII. from Pope Leo X., but

was rather from Wolsey. Bishop Wilfrid of Ripon (670-688) had

the four Gospels written with the finest gold. Boniface requested

his English friends to send him the Epistles of Paul wr.tten with

aold in order therewith to impress the simple-minded Germans

Jfd 12 d QQ), a fact of which Gustav Freitag makes use in his

llo undlntraban, p. 476. (See Die Christliche Welt, ,888, «.)

Cf. also the manuscripts of Theodulf in Paris and Puy (see below,

1 Hody, 1684, p. 254 T-

J Vide Harnack in the ThLz., 1885, cols. 321, 324, "• 5-

> Ed. Feige, p. 53-' D""'"- L'CL

'°' "'

' Sachs. Sitz.-Bcr. (1S89), xi. 4, 369-

p. 125). The Cistercians forbade the use of gold and silver bind-

ings or clasps (lirmacula) and also of different colours.

Illustrations must have made their appearance in Greek manu- Illustration,

scripts a whole century earlier than has hitherto been supposed if

H. Kothe is right in his interpretation of the passage in Diogenes

Laertius, ii. 3, 8 ( = Clem., Strom., i. 78, p. 364, Potter) : n-puiTos St

'Avafa-ydpas kcli fiifiKiov e£c'6Wc <rw ypa<f>V (" w 'tn a picture ": formerly

read as o-vyypa<£i}s). In addition to the works of Aristotle and the

obscene poems of Philainis, illustrated manuscripts were known to

exist of the works of the astronomers Eudoxus and Aratus, of the

botanist Dioscorides, of the tactician Euangelos, and of the geographer

Ptolemy. A description of the earliest illustrated Bibles is given by

Victor Schultze in the Daheim, 1898, No. 28, 449 ff., with good

facsimiles. On the horses in the chariot of Elijah in a Greek

manuscript of the ninth century in the Vatican Library, and on the

pictures of the horsemen in the codex of Joshua also contained there,

see F. aus'm Weerth in the Jahrbuch des Vereins von Altertums-

Freunden im Rheinland, Heft 78 (1884), Plate VI.

Cassiodorus had a Pandectes Latinus

—

i.e. a manuscript of the OldLatin Bible of large size—which contained pictures of the Tabernacle

and the Temple. There is an old work on this subject by P. Zornius

entitled Historia Bibliorum pictorum ex anliquitatibus Ebraeorum el

Christianorum illustrata cum figuris, Lipsiae, 1743, 4to; and by the

same author, Von den Handbibeln der ersten Christen, Lips. 1738, also

Historia Bibliorum ex Ebraeorum diebus festis et jejuneis illustrata,

Lips., 1 741. See also Georg Thiele, De antiquorum libris pictis

capita quattuor, Marburg, 1897.

Palimpsests of Bible manuscripts came to be prohibited by the k

Church. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (Trullan, Concilium quini-PalimPsests -

sextum, 680-681), in its 68th canon, IIcpi rou /ii) i(tlvat nn rwv

dirovnof fiijiKla. ttjs iraAoias nal vtas Sia&jiojs Sta<j>6clptw, forbids the

sale of old manuscripts of the Bible to the (2i(s\.ioKairri\oi or the

ILvpafiol, or to any persons whatever. 1 There was naturally a special

aversion to letting such manuscripts fall into the hands of Jews ; but

yet there were discovered, in the lumber room of the Synagogue of

Old Cairo, fragments of a Greek MS. of the Gospels, which had

1 Balsamon, the Canonist (c. 1200), complains that -rivis 81' ahrxpoKcpScui'BiPKlwv tin Sfttm ypa'piir in*»ptv6itivot i*if\ti<t'o>, and he requests aiintluaaiTatrra 5ii rovs fitflKtoitawfaovs Tout iwaxdôtTas THf 0*laiv ypa<pwv.

been afterwards r£t r^» -«:A good example of the»|^^£^, «. «^ - 5.

Punctuation. Lk . , 35, on which .«£««J*^ «|-«, By a different

where Lachmann punctuates « ^ ^ WertMtt.Hort ke

punctuation in HeD. 1. 9, „„rf i v(.iv In the former case the

S &l6s vocative and nominative -P^^ In t ^ ^Messiah is God, in the other God^ the one ^.^difference was not observed at firs by v ^

God or that God is Messiahs thron- C-s™ PSvrus in

of such marks of division, the rule laid down b

^ ^ should

the year 35o, and again^^2" *4™ fifi**be carefully«^^^ÎW^W t« *«»«*«"^ -TT" "£ 52 JXJ/ -A <W**r, P- M>- .Compare

f, ,«rayPa+ovTc(see Nestle * g

tf on Mt . viu. 9 : w«also what Chrysostom says regarding puna ^^raivâ^-ayov^v «ro

J^J* On the change of

See a.so Victor

^J^ver ,t o^.«^^ ^

the sense by^ means of fate e^ ^^^ .

^

--r^Set^^t:^^,,,ci, a^s^^

addition to some enU e Bible CasM ^ ^ôut i„ 9 codices. Of the* voK

J^^ speaks of

the Epistles, and IX. the Acts ana *u ,fand

6 books of the Jew TyumenoPwh,ch^proba y^ ^^

Mk., II. Lk. and Jr.., HI- Acta, I

and ^ pauUne

Epistles, VI. Apocalypse. As a rule me F

Similarly, the singular type of text exhibited by cod. A in Mark

would show that this codex, or that from which it was copied, was

transcribed from different rolls or codices, each containing one

Gospel. See Zahn, GK. i. 63.

On the designation Bibliotheca and Pandectes for Bible manuscripts,.

n

_ „ .. . . - »» • /. .1 .. .l DiDiiotneca.

see Zahn, GK. 1. 65. On -ra>\os, ibid. 67. He informs us that the

earliest mention of a Christian bibliotheca and its armaria is in the

J heathen protocol of the year 304, in the Gesta apud Zenophilum given

in Dupin after Optatus, p. 262. The next earliest notice is in

Augustine. The custodians of the bibliothecae were probably the

Readers. In Ruinart's Acta Saturnini a certain Ampelius is men-

tioned as " custos legis, scripturarumque divinarum fidelissimus

conservator." From Irenaeus, iv. 33, 2 Lessing concluded that at

that time the few existing copies of the Scriptures were in the custody

of the clergy, and were only to be perused in their presence. (Zusatze

zu einer notigen Antwort. Works, ed. Maltzahn, xi. 2, 179.) On this

point see Zahn, GK. i. 140.

(a.) UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS.

K CODEX SlNAITlCUS, now in St. Petersburg, contains the

entire New Testament written in the fourth or more probably

at the beginning of the fifth century. The story of its dis-

covery and acquisition is quite romantic. When Tischendorf,

under the patronage of his sovereign King Frederick Augustusof Saxony, came to the Convent of St. Catherine on MountSinai for the first time in 1844, he rescued from a basket there

forty-three old sheets of parchment which, with other rubbish,

were destined for the fire. In this way he obtained possession ofportions of one of the oldest MSS. of the Old Testament,which he published as the Codex Frederico-Augustanus(F-A) in 1846. At the same time he learned that other por-tions of the same Codex existed in the Monastery. He couldfind no trace of these, however, on his second visit in 1853.But on his third visit, undertaken with the patronage of theEmperor of Russia, the steward of the monastery brought him,shortly before his departure on the 4th February 1859, what

54 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. H.

surpassed all his expectations, the entire remaining portions of

the Codex comprising a great part of the Old Testament and

the whole of the New, wrapped up in a red cloth. Not only

was the New Testament perfect, but in addition to the twenty-

seven books, the MS. contained the Epistle of Barnabas and

part of the so-called Shepherd of Hermas, two books of the

greatest repute in early Christian times, the Greek text ofwhich

was only partially extant in Europe. Tischendorf managed to

secure the MS. for the Emperor of Russia, at whose expense

it was published in four folio volumes in the year 1 862 on the

thousandth anniversary of the founding of the Russian Empire.

In return for the MS. the monastery received a silver shrine

for St. Catherine, a gift of 7000 roubles for the library and

2000 for the monastery on Mount Tabor, while several

Russian decorations were distributed among the Fathers.

Unfortunately the art of photography was not so far ad-

vanced thirty-eight years ago as to permit a perfect facsimile to

be made of the MS., and Tischendorf had to be content with

a printed copy executed as faithfully as the utmost care and

superintendence would admit.

To what date does the manuscript belong ? There is still

extant a letter of the first Christian Emperor Constantine

dating from the year 331, in which he asks Eusebius, Bishop

of Caesarea in Palestine, to provide him with fifty copies of the

Old and New Testament for use in the principal churches of

his empire (TrevrtiKovra a-wfidna ev 8uf>depatf cyKaraiTKtioit;) and

puts two public carriages at the bishop's disposal for their

safe transport. We have also the letter that Eusebius sent

along with these Bibles, in which he consigns them ev

iro\vTe\a>s ija-Ktinevoig Tei'^eo-i Tpiaaa. /cat Terpacrva—i.e. " in

expensively prepared volumes of three and four." With former

scholars Tischendorf understood the expression Tpi<T<ra koi

Terpatra-a of the number of sheets in the quires of the manu-

scripts, as though they had been composed of ternions and

quaternions of twelve and sixteen pages respectively. Others

took it as referring to the number of columns on the pages,

CHAP. 11.I MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 55

Codex Sinaiticus, which Tischendorf believed to be one ofthese fifty Bibles, being unique in showing four columns to thepage. The most probable explanation of the phrase is, how-ever, that it indicates the number of volumes each Bible com-prised, and means that each Bible of three or four parts, asthe case might be, was packed in a separate box.1 Tischendorf,as has been said, saw in Codex Sinaiticus one of these fifty

Bibles. He also thought that m was the work of four differentscribes, and was confident that one of these, the one who hadwritten only six leaves of the New Testament, was the scribeof Codex Vaticanus. But other authorities bring w down tothe beginning of the fifth century.

One can understand how it was that Tischendorf was ledto overrate the value of this manuscript at first, and to call it

by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet to signify its pre-eminence over all other manuscripts. The claim is so farjustified that it is at least one of the oldest manuscripts, andof the oldest the only one that contains the entire NewTestament. The order is that of the Gospels, PaulineEpistles (among which Hebrews is found after 2 Thess.),Acts, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse, after which comeBarnabas and Hermas.2 This same order is observed in theOld Syriac Bible, and in the first printed Greek New Testa-ment, the Complutensian Polyglot. The fact that Barnabasis still tacitly included in the books of the New Testament

1 On Constantine's Bibles, see Westcott, Canon, c ii. p. 426 ; Bible in theChurch, c. vi. p. 155 ff. ; Zahn, Geschichte aes N. T. Kanons, i. 64. Zahn com-bats the supposition that the entire Bible was contained in each Codex, pointingout quite rightly that in that case the latter could not have been tbptrajiipicTa,and moreover that Constantine speaks oi <r«M<(ria, which does not mean codicesbut something much more indefinite. Nor does he believe that Eusebius intendedto specify the number of sheets in each quire of the Codex or of the columns inwhich it was written. " The fifty Bibles might and would be distributed in 200 to400 volumes." According to the view taken above there would be from 150 to200 of these. Cf. Scrivener, i. p. 118, n. 2.

'For the order of the books in «, see Westcott, Bible in the Church, AppendixB, " Contents of the most ancient MSS. of the Bible (A, B, *, D, AmiaL)"

;

Hist, of the Canon, Appendix D, " Catalogues of Books of the Bible during thefirst eight Centuries."

may be taken equally as indicating the age of x itself or that

of the exemplar from which it was copied1 Jerome's recen-

sion of Origen's Lexicon of Proper Names in the Greek New

Testament is still extant, and in it Barnabas is cited like the

other books. In the Catalogus Claromontanus, which is a

very old list of the books of the New Testament, Barnabas is

even found before the Apocalypse, an arrangement which is

not found again in the succeeding centuries.

Canons N is also the oldest MS. that has the so-called Ammonlan

Sections and Euseblan Canons. In order to facilitate the

study of the Gospels, Ammonius of Alexandria arranged,

alongside of Matthew's Gospel, the parallel passages in

Mark, Luke, and John. For this purpose he was obliged

of course to dislocate these last4 Eusebius, however,

simply divided the four Gospels into 1162 sections—viz,

355 in Matthew, 233 in Mark, 342 in Luke, and 232 in

John. These he numbered consecutively in each Gospel, and

then arranged the numbers in ten Canons or Tables. The

first contained those passages which are found in all the four

Gospels ; the second, third, and fourth those common to any

particular combination of three; the fifth to the ninth com-

prised the passages common to any two, and the tenth those

peculiar to each one. The number of its Canon was then set

under that of the section in the margin, and the Table inserted

at the beginning or end of the manuscript By this means

it was possible to know in the case of each section whether a

parallel was to be found in the other Gospels, and where. In

the margin opposite John xv. 20, e.g., we find the numbers

pX0 -

e139 Tn is tens us that this 139th section of John

y' 3

is also found in Matthew and Luke. For on referring to

Canon 3 we find that it contains the passages common to John,

Six leaves are now wanting between Barnabas and Hernias. What did these

contain, shall we suppose? Perhaps the Didache. Schmiedel makes a different

conjecture in the Literarischts Centralblatt, 1897, n. 49.

» Vide Wordsworth and White, Epilogs, p. 737. Dt Sectiombus Ammomants

in Evangeliis.


Matthew, and Luke, and that this section numbered 139 in

John, is 90 in Matthew and 58 in Luke. And the sections

being numbered consecutively in each Gospel, we easily ascer-

tain that the former is Matthew x. 24, and the latter Luke

vi. 40. These, or similar numbers, were afterwards inserted in

the lower margin of manuscripts, as, e.g., in Codex Argenteus

of the Version of Ulfilas. They are still printed alongside

the text in our larger editions, though, of course, owing to the

introduction of our system of chapter and verse division they

have lost their main significance.

Now, a Codex like s represents to us not one manuscript Revisions,

only, but several at once. It embodies first of all the manu-

script from which its text was immediately derived, and then

also that or those by which it was revised. That is to say,

after the manuscript was written by the scribe, either to dicta-

tion or by copying, it was, particularly in the case of a costly

manuscript, handed over to a person called the SiopOurrm and

revised. This might be done several times over ; it might be

done by a later owner if he were a scholar. But it might

happen, as in the case of x e.g., that the exemplar by which

the manuscript was revised was not the identical one from

which it had been copied but a different one, perhaps older,

perhaps exhibiting another form of text altogether. Tischen-

dorf distinguished no fewer than seven correctors in s. Oneof these, belonging, it may be, to the seventh century, adds a

note at the end of the book of Ezra to the following effect,

—

"This codex was compared with a very ancient exemplar

which had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr

Pamphilus ; which exemplar contained at the end the sub-

scription in his own hand :' Taken and corrected according to

the Hexapla of Origen : Antonius compared it : I, Pamphilus,

corrected it"' 1 A similar note is found appended to the

1 'Ay-rtBKty-n »p4l wnXaiiraror May irj(ypa<poy ttStopOaifityoy X"P' *•<> kyltvfiiprvpos Ha/nplKov htp Iwrlypatpov wpht t> WXii faroiri))i<ii»irit tii iliixt'pot

alrrtu IrwUttro txouaa oVtoi ' inTt\^ft<p9n «al ttopBiifri) rpht t4 i^a-wKa Tlpiyivovs'

'AvTuvTvot arriPaktv' nifufuXos Si6p$csaa.

5*GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II.

Book of Esther, where it is also pointed out that variants

occurred in the case of proper names. Traces are st.ll dis-

coverable in the Psalms which go to prove that the correctors

Bible agreed with that of Eusebius, while the manuscript

itself had been copied from one that was very different.

A considerable number of scholars are of opinion that s was

written in the West, perhaps in Rome. (See Plate I.)

Tischendorf: (t) Notitia editions, i860; (2) Bibliorum Codex Sin-

aiticus Petropolitanus, Petropoli, 1862, fol. Vol I J'olegomena et

Commentary Vol. IV, Novum Testamentum (3) #. ™?%»£Lips. 1863. (Die Anfechtungen der Sinathbel, L,ps. .863, Waffen

der Finsterniss wider die Sinaibibel, Lips. 1863.) (4) N.T Grace

ex S.naitico Codice omnium antiquissimo, Lips. ,865. Collattotextus

rracci editionis polyglottae cum Novo Testamento S,na,tuo. Append,x

editionis Novi Testamenti polyglottae, Bielefeldiae. Sutnpt.bus Vel-

hagen et Klasing, 1894, large 8vo, pp. iv. 96. (Preface only by

Tischendorf.) On Kenyon's showing, the recent papyrus discoveries

Rive no occasion for abandoning the conclusions formerly come to

regarding the age of these parchment manuscripts (A/«^J,

p ,20). Scrivener, A full Collation of the Codex Sinattuus wxththe

Received Text of the N. Testament, 2nd edition, 1867. Ezra Abbo ,

"On the comparative antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican Manu-

scripts of the Greek Bible," Journal of the American Oriental Society,

vol. x., i. 1872, pp. 189 fl".

A CODEX ALEXANDRINUS : middle or end of the fifth

century: written probably at Alexandria: contains a note in

Arabic stating that it was presented to the library of the

Patriarch of Alexandria in the year .098. The Codex was

sent by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles 1.

of England in 1628, and was deposited in the library of the

British Museum on its foundation in 1753. where it has been

ever since. It has been employed in the textual criticism of

the New Testament since the time of Walton. It was printed

in 1786 by Woide in facsimile from wooden type. The Old

Testament portion of it was also published in 1816-1828 by

Baber. The entire manuscript was issued in autotype fac-

simile in 1879 and 1880.


The Codex is defective at the beginning of the New Testa-

ment, the first twenty-six leaves down to Matthew xxv. 6 being

absent, as also two containing John vi. 50-viii. 52, and three

containing 2 Cor. iv. 13-xii. 6. It also contains after the

Apocalypse the (first) Epistle of Clement of Rome and a

small fragment of the so-called second Epistle, which is really

an early sermon. In the Codex these are recognised as parts

of the New Testament, inasmuch as in the table of contents

prefixed to the entire work they are included with the other

books under the title i, <aivn SiadtiKi]1 After them is given

the number of books 6nov j8i/3\ia, only the figures are now,

unfortunately, torn away. The contents indicate that the

Psalms of Solomon should have followed, but these have

been lost with the rest of the manuscript.

A is distinguished among the oldest manuscripts by the

use of capital letters to indicate new sections. But in order

to economize room and to obviate spacing the lines, the first

letter of the section, if it occurs in the middle of a line, is not

written larger, but the one that occurs at the beginning of the

next whole line is enlarged and projects into the margin.

(See Plate I. 2.) Later scribes have copied this so slavishly

that they have written these letters in capitals even when they

occur in the middle of the line in their manuscripts. TheEgyptian origin of this Codex is shown by its use of Coptic

forms for A and M. In several books A displays a remark-

able affinity with Jerome in those very passages where he

deviates from the older Latin version.

The books in A follow the order—Gospels, Acts, Catholic

Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse. (Westcott, Cation,

Appendix D. xii. ; Bible in the Church, Appendix B.)

Woide, 1786; eiusdem, Notitia codicis Alexandrini, Recud. cur.

notasque adjecit G. L. Spohn, Lipsiae, 1788; Cowper, i860;

Hansell, 1864; Photographic facsimile by Thompson, 1879 ; and in

the Facsimiles of the Palsograpical Society, PI. 106.

1 This agrees with the last of the .so-called Apostolic Canons (85), which includes

KA^frros 'Ei«r rcXal tio among the Books of the New Testament after the Epistles

of James and Jude. See Westcott, Canon, Appendix D. iii. a.

6o GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II.

The mixed character of the text of A was early observed ; see

Lagarde, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, p. 94.

C. F. Hoole ascribes the Codex Alexandrinus to the middle of

the fourth century (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1891; see Academy,

July 25, 1891, 73).

B. Codex Vaticanus par excellence, No. 1209 in the

Vatican Library at Rome, inserted there shortly after its

foundation by Pope Nicolas V., and one of its greatest

treasures. Like A it once contained the whole of the Old

Testament with the exception of the Books of Maccabees.

The first 31 leaves, containing Gen. i. i-xlvi. 28, are now

wanting, as well as 20 from the Psalms containing Ps.

cv. (cvi.) 27-cxxxvii. (cxxxviii.) 6. The New Testament

is complete down to Heb. ix. 14, where it breaks off at

KaOa[piet]. I and 2 Tim., Titus, Philemon, and the Apocalypse

are, therefore, also wanting. Rahlfs supposes that the manu-

script may have originally contained the Didache and the

Shepherd of Hermas as well. Erasmus obtained some account

of this manuscript, and Pope Sixtus V. made it the basis of

an edition of the Greek Old Testament, which was published

in 1586, thereby determining the textus receptus of that

portion of the Bible.—Would he had done the same for the

New Testament I This task was undertaken afterwards,

specially by Bentley and Birch. Professor Hug of Freiburg

recognised the value of the Codex when it was removed from

Rome to Paris by Napoleon in 1809. Cardinal Angelo Mai

printed an edition of it between 1828' and 1838, which, how-

ever, did not appear till 1857, three years after his death, and

which was most unsatisfactory. After Tischendorf had led

the way with the Codex Sinaiticus, Pope Pio Nono gave

orders for an edition, which was printed between 1868 and 1 872

in five folio volumes. Not till 1881, however, did the last

volume of this edition appear containing the indispensable

commentary prepared under the supervision of Vercellone,

J. Cozza, C. Sergio, and H. Fabiani, with the assistance of

U. Ubaldi and A. Rocchi. Then at last the manuscript was

CHAP.11.J MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 6l

photographed, the New Testament in 1889, and the OldTestament, in three volumes, in 1890—a veritable ijA/01/

avddqua. No facsimile now can give any idea of its original

beauty, because a hand of the tenth or eleventh century—or

as the Roman editors say, a monk called Clement in the

fifteenth century—went over the whole manuscript, letter byletter, with fresh ink, restoring the faded characters and at

the same time adding accents and breathings in accordancewith the pronunciation of his time (ana£a, for example, andaXiiwTig, tie). The Old Testament is the work of at least twoscribes, one of whom wrote down to 1 Sam. ix. 11, and theother to the end of 2 Esdras. TischendorPs opinion withregard to the writer of the New Testament has been alreadynoticed. There can be no question that B is more carefully

written than x. In the Gospels the Vatican exhibits apeculiar division into 170, 62, 152, and 80 sections respec-tively, which is found also in H ; in the Acts there is adouble division into 36 and 69. 1 The enumeration affixed tothe Pauline Epistles shows that these were copied from amanuscript in which Hebrews came after Galatians, thoughin B its position has been changed so as to follow 2 Thessa-lonians. The copyist has also retained in part of the OldTestament the enumeration of the stichoi which he found inhis original. In the New Testament the order of the booksis Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles. Anincreased interest would be lent to this manuscript if, as hasbeen supposed, it represents the recension of the EgyptianBishop and Martyr Hesychius, of which Jerome makes men-tion in two places. (Bousset, Textkritische Studien zumNeuen Testament, pp. 74-110, see especially p. 96.) On theEgyptian character of B, see also Burkitt in Texts and Studies,v. p. viii. f., and compare below, p. 183 f. (See Plate IV.)Hug, Commtntatio de antiquitate codicis Vatieani, 18 10. Vercellone,

DeW antichissimo codicc Vaticano delta Bibbia Greca, 1859; reprinted

1 On the Alexandrian division of the Gospels into 68, 48, 83, and 18 sectionsrespectively, see Kenyon in theJournal 0/ Theological Studies, i. 149.

in his Dissertation* accademiche, Roma, 1864, "5 ff- F 'rst facsimile

reproduction, Bibliorum sacrorum Graecus Codex Vaticanus ....

collatis studiis Caroli Vercellone etJosefhi Cozza editus, vol. v., Rome,

1868 • vol. vi. (Proleg. Comment. Tab. ed. Henr. Fabiani et Jos. .

Cozza'), 1881 j cf. ThLz., 1882, vi. 9. A. Giovanni, Delia Illus-

tration delF edizione Romana del Codice Vaticano, Rome, 1869.

Photographic edition, Novum Testamentum e Codice Vaticano

1209 ... phototypice repraesentatum .... curante Jos. Cozza-

Luzi, Rome, 1889, fol. ; see H. C. Hoskier, The Expositor, 1889,

vol. x. 457 ff. ; O. v. Gebhardt, ThLz., 1890, 16; Nestle, Sep.-St,

ii. 16 ff. Alf. Rahlfs, Alter und Heimat der Vatikanischtn Bibel-

handschrift (Nachrichten der Gesell. der Wiss. zu Gottingen, Philo-

logisch-historische Klasse, 1889, Heft i. pp. 7«-79>- In this article

Rahlfs seeks to prove that the number and order of the books in the

Old and New Testaments contained in B correspond exactly to the

Canon of the Scriptures given by Athanasius in his thirty-ninth

Festal Letter of the year 367. In it, Athanasius, after mentioning

all the canonic* ' books of the Bible, including those of the N. T.,

cites the extra-canonical books of the O. T. which are allowed to

be read, putting them after the second group, /?i'0Xoi <ttiXw«s,

because two of these books, Wisdom and Sirach, were to be written

.rnxijSw- In the N. T. the Greek and Syriac forms of the Festal

Letter put Hebrews expressly between the Epistles to the Churches

and the Pastoral Epistles. In the Sahidic version of the Letter,

however, Hebrews stands before Galatians. This latter arrangement

is evidently the survival of a pre-Athanasian order which has been

longer preserved in the Sahidic translation. 1 But if B is the work

of Athanasius, it follows that it cannot be one of the Bibles

ordered by Constantine. In this case it would rather be written in

Egypt, and we should have in it the Recension of Hesychius, as

Grabe' supposed was the case in the O. T., while Hug held the same

view in regard to the N. T. text of this manuscript (see below, c. III.).

Against the theory of Rahlfs, see O. v. Gebhardt in the Tluologische

Litteraturzeitung, 1899, n. 20.

1 For the Festal Letter, see Westcott, Canon, App. D. xiv., p. 554 ;Bible in the

Chunk p. 159 ff. ; Preuschen's Anahcta, pp. 144 ff. ; Buigess, Fatal Utters of

Athanasius translated from the Syriac, p. 137. Sahidic published by C.

Schmidt in the Nachrichten mentioned above, 1898, p. 167 ff. He holds it to

be the original form of the Letter.


C. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, No. 9 in the National

Library at Paris, the most important of the palimpsests. This

manuscript receives its name from the fact that in the

twelfth century thirty-eight treatises of Ephraem, the Syrian

Father (d. 373), were written over the original text. After

various attempts had been made at its decipherment by Wett-

stein and others, Tischendorf in 1 843 and 1 845 published as

much of the New and Old Testaments as he was able to

make out after eighteen months' labour, thereby establishing

his reputation as a textual critic.

*The manuscript once contained the entire Bible, but the

whole of 1 and 2 Thessalonians has been lost, as also some

37 chapters from the Gospels, 10 from the Acts, 42 from the

Epistles, and 8 from the Apocalypse. There is no trace of a

chapter division in Acts, Epistles, or Apocalypse. This last

seems to have been copied from an exemplar consisting of

about 1 20 small leaves, one of which had been displaced bysome mistake. The Codex dates from the fifth century, and

may possibly have been written in Egypt Its earliest correc-

tions are important, and were inserted in the sixth century.

A detailed list of the contents of C is given by Scrivener,

vol. i. 121. Facsimile, ibid., Plate X. p. 121.

Tischendorf, Th. St. und Kr., 1841, 126 ff ; N.T. edited 1843, O. T.

1845. Lagarde, Ges. Abhandlungen, p. 94. The page of the O. T.

which Tischendorf issued in facsimile has most unfortunately dis-

appeared, as Martin points out in his Description technique des

manuscrits grecs relatifs au N. T., etc., Paris, 1884, p. 4. A. Jacob,

Notes sur les MSS. grecs palimpsestes de la Bibliothique Nationale, in

Melanges Julien Havet, 759-770.

The foregoing is what remains of the four great manuscripts

which once contained the whole Bible. It will be observed

that at the present time they are distributed among the

Capitals of the great branches of the Christian Church—viz.,

St. Petersburg (Greek), Rome and Paris (Roman), and London(Anglican). German scholars have taken a foremost place in

the work of their investigation.


D. D Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, inferior to the fore-

going in age, compass, and repute, but perhaps surpassing all

of them in importance, by reason of its unique character The

manuscript was presented to the University of Cambridge in

1 581 by Calvin's friend Theodore Beza, " ut inter vere Chris-

tianas antiquissimae plurimisque nominibus celebernmae. It

is not earlier than the beginning of the sixth century, but

is of peculiar importance as the oldest of the Greek-Latin

manuscripts of the Bible. It now contains, with certain lacunae,

the Gospels (in the order Matthew, John, Luke, Mark), the con-

cluding verses of the Latin text of 3 John, followed immedi-

ately by the Acts, showing that in this manuscript the Epistle

of Jude either stood somewhere else or was absent altogether.

At least nine later hands can be distinguished in it. The first

scribe was more familiar with Latin than Greek, and therefore

inserts a Roman letter here and there in the middle of a Greek

word and has frequently to use the sponge to wash out the

mistakes he makes in writing his manuscript l Innumerable

passages occur, particularly in Luke and Acts, where the text

of D differs in the most remarkable manner from that of all

the Greek manuscripts we are acquainted with. It alone, e.g.,

contains after Luke vi. 4 the incident of the man working in

the field on the Sabbath day, to whom Jesus said, " O Man,

if thou knowest what thou doest, blessed art thou,- but if thou

knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the Law.

It is the only one also that has the words in Luke xi. 2, " when

ye pray use not vain repetitions as the \onrol." In Luke xxni.

53 it says that the stone before the grave of Jesus was of such

a size 8, n6y« ukoctc «.5W, an addition in which it has the

support of only one Latin MS. and the Sahid.c Version.

A-ain in Acts xii. 10, it is alone in recording that there were

seven steps down from the prison in Jerusalem (Kari^av toi/v

fcrri /Sa^oJy). Other examples might be given of similar

peculiar interpolations for the explanation of which reference

must be made to c. III. below.

• E.g. AnECTALKEN, 122*, 4-

Its companion Latin text d is not translated directly from

its own Greek but from the Greek of the parent manuscript.

Seeing that the manuscript was discovered in the Monastery

of Irenaeus at Lyons, and that its text agrees with the Scripture

quotations found in that Father even in the matter of clerical

mistakes, it is possible that the Greek text is derived from his

copy. The Greek occupies the left-hand page of the open

volume, which is the place of honour. (See Plates II and III.)

Kipling, Facsimile edition, Codex Th. Bezae Cantabrigiensis, 1793,

2 vols. ; Scrivener, Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis. An exact copy in

Ordinary type . . . with critical introduction, annotations, and fac-

similes. 4to, pp. lxiv + 453, 1864. Collation of the same by Nestle,

Supplementum, 1896 (see p. 26). Cambridge University Press,

Photographicfacsimile. Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis Quattuor Evan-gelia et Actus Apostolorum continens Graece et Latine. 2 vols., pp.

830, 1899. ,2 guineas. (See Literature, 29th April 1899, p. 451ff.); Dav. Schulz, Disputatio de Codice D., 1827; K. A. Credner,

Beiirdge zur Einltitung, vol. i., 1832, pp. 452-518; J. R. Harris,

Codex Bezae. A study of the so-called Western Text of the N. T.

(Texts and Studies, vol. ii.) Cambridge, 1891 ; also Credner and the

Codex Bezae. A Lecture delivered in the Divinity School, Cambridge,

igth Nov. 1892. (The Classical Review, vol. vii. 6, June 1893,

pp. 237-243); Chase, The Old Syriac Element in the text of CodexBezae, London, 1 893 ; also The Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels,

London, 1895 ; Nestle, Some Observations on the Codex Bezae in the

Expositor, v. 2, 1895, p. 235 ; H. Trabaud, Un curieux manuscritdu N. T. in the Revue de theologie et de philosophic, Lausanne,

1896, p. 378; Fr. Blass: 1. Die zwiefache Textiiberlieferung in derApostelgeschichte (Th. St. Kr., 1894, p. 86 ff.) ; 2. Acta Apostolorumsive Lucae ad Theophilum Liber alter. Editio philologica, GSttingen,

'895 j 3- Acta Apostolorum . . . secundum formam quae videtur

Romanam, Leipzig, 1896 ; 4. Ueber die verschiedenen Textformen in

den Schriften des Lukas (Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 1895, p. 712);5. De duplici forma Actorum Lucae (Hermathena, Dublin, 1895, p.

121); 6.DcvariisformisEvangeliiLucani(Ibid.,D\\bX\n, 1896, p. 291) ;

7. Neue Texteszeugen fiir die Apostelgeschichte (Th. St. Kr., 1896,

p. 436) ; 8. Evangelium secundum Lucam sive Lucae ad TheophilumLiber prior. Secundum formam quae videtur Romanam, Leipzig,

1897 ; fi. Weiss, Der Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte. Textkritische

E


Untersuchung, Leipzig, 1897. ( = Texte und Untersuchungen. N. F

Zweiter Band, Heft ,) ; F. Graefe, Der Codex Bezae und das Lucas-

evangelium, Th.St.Kr., ,898,1. 1 16-140 ;compare especially, 0« M*

Italian Origin of Codex Bezae. 1. Codex Bezae and cod. 1071, by

the Rev. K. Lake; 2. The Marginal Notes of Lections, by the Rev

F E Brightman in the Journal of Theological Studtes, 1. 3 (April

1000) pp. 441-4S4- Codex ,071 is a minuscule on Mt. Athos,

in

which the text of the Pericope Adulterae (John vm.) is essentially the

same as the singular text exhibited by D. It seems to have come from

Calabria The lectionary indicated in the margin of D points to a

mixed Greek and Latin population such as that in the South of Italy.

In what follows the manuscripts are grouped according to

their contents as copies of the Gospels, Acts and Catholic

Epistles, Pauline Epistles, or of the Apocalypse.

E Codex Basiliensis, by some ascribed to the seventh

century, but belonging more probably to the eighth :brought

to Europe by Cardinal John de Ragusio, who was sent on a

mission to the Greeks by the Council of Basel (1431): used

by Mill Bengel.andWettstein: Luke Hi. 4-1 5 a"d xxiv. 47-53

wanting : has been in the University Library at Basel since

1559. (Scrivener, i. p. 131. plate XL 27->„ ,

F BOREELIAN US, written in the ninth century: so called

as belonging at one time to a Dutchman named John

Boreel- now in Utrecht: has many lacunae, some of which

have arisen since Wettstein collated the manuscript in 1730.

(Scrivener, i. I3«. plate XI - 28-)

F» COISLINIANUS, of the seventh century, though some

say the sixth and others the eighth : consists of only 26 verses

from Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Col., and

Heb written on the margin of a famous Parisian manuscript

of the Octoteuch in Greek containing Gen.-Deut, Josh., Jud.,

and Ruth. List of contents of F* in Scrivener, i. 134-

G SEIDELIANUS, of the tenth century: part of it in the

British Museum in London and part in Trinity College

Cambridge : brought from the East by Seidel and presented

in 1718 by the Berlin Librarian La Croze to J.Chr. Wolf, a


clergyman in Hamburg who cut out half a page to send to

Bentley in 1721. (Scrivener, i. 131, Plate XI. 29.)

H. SEIDELIANUS II., of the ninth century, in Hamburg:bequeathed with his library to his native city by Wolf, and

rediscovered there in 1838. (Scrivener, i. 134, Plate XII. 31.)

I. TiSCHENDORFlANUS II., fragments of seven manuscripts

in St. Petersburg found by Tischendorf in the Monastery of

Mar Saba, near the Dead Sea : consists of 28 palimpsest leaves

with Greek writing of the tenth century containing only 255verses of the New Testament, of which 190 are from the

Gospels : the three oldest leaves are of the fifth century

;

some of them are perhaps parts of a once complete Bible :

detailed list of contents in Scrivener, i. 134 f.

I*. So indicated by Tischendorf in his eighth edition,

formerly known as N b, of the fourth or more probably the

fifth century: a threefold palimpsest written first in Greekand afterwards twice in Syriac : contains 17 verses from John's

Gospel : now in the British Museum : list of verses in

Scrivener, i. 141.

K. CYPRIUS, No. 61 in the National Library at Paris:

middle of the ninth century : purchased in Cyprus for Colbert

in 1673 : one of the six, or including fi seven, complete uncial

manuscripts of the Gospels, the others being n BMSU (il).

Facsimile in Scrivener, i., Plate VII. p. 153.

L. Regius, No. 62 in the National Library at Paris : of the

eighth century : contains the four Gospels complete with the

exception of five lacunae in Matthew iv. v. and xxviii., Markx. and xv., and in John xxi. : important as showing thedouble conclusion of Mark's Gospel which is exhibited as yet,

except in versions, in only three other uncials ("1, p, and ,ir)and one minuscule (see Plate X.). Facsimile of L, Mark xvi.

8, 9, in Scrivener, i., Plate IX. 21, p. 137. The conclusions, asfound in L, 1, p, and ¥, are printed and discussed in Swete'sGospel according to St. Mark, pp. xcviii, xcix. See also West-cottand Hort's Introduction, Appendix, p. 28 ff.; Scrivener, ii.

337 ; Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, iii. p. 13.

68 GREEk NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP, ii;

M. CampiAnus,48 in the National Library, Paris: of the

ninth century : presented to Louis XIV. by the Abbe Francois

de Camps, 1st January 1706: contains the four Gospels com-

plete : one of the oldest manuscripts, with the exception of

D, that exhibit the pericope bf the adulteress, John vii. 53 ff.

Facsimile in Scrivener, i., Plate XII. p. 1 34.

N. PtJRPUREUS, belonging to the end of the sixth century

:

one of the most lovely manuscripts, consisting of 45 leaves, of

which 6 are in the Vatican Library at Rome, 4 in the British

Museum, 2 in Vienna, and the remaining 33 in the Monastery

of St. John in Patrhos, from which, iri ail probability, the others

were carried off. The manuscript is written with silver letters

on a purple ground, only the letters are not printed on it with

movable type as was formerly supposed in the case of the

similar Codex Argenteus of Ulfilas. the contents are given

in Scrivener, i. 139 (., and a facsimile at p. 98, Plate V.

182 other leaves belonging to this manuscript were recently

acquired in Cappadocia for Russia.

The Vienna fragment is most beautifully printed in facsimile in that

superb work, Die Wiener Genesis, edited by Wilh. Ritter von Hartel

and Franz Wickhoff : Supplement to vols. xv. and xvi. of theJahrbuch

der kunsthistorischen Sammlungcn des Allerhochsten Kaiserhauses.

Vienna, 1895. Hartel (p. 142) sees no reason why the manuscript

should not be ascribed to the fifth century.

The text of Codex N, including the new Russian fragments, has

been published with Introduction and Appendix by the Rev. H. S.

Cronin in Texts and Studies, v. 4, 1899. The Appendix contains a

collation of the Gospel of Mark in the Codex Imperatricis Theodorae

(Scriv. 473: Hort 8 1 : Tisch. 2Pe: Greg. 565 ; see note on p. : 5 1 ). See

Nestle in the Zeitschrift fiir wiss. Theologie, 42 (iSjg), pp. 621-6*3.

Some leaves of another purple manuscript have been acquired in

Paris. See H. Omont, Acad, des Inscr., Mars-Avril 1900.

O. In Moscow, consists of a few leaves taken from the

binding of a book : contains 1 5 verses from John's Gospel

i. and xX. : written in the ninth century.

0*~h. Psalters, in which are found, after the Psalms among


the poetic selections from the Bible, the Magnificat, the

B,enedictus, and the Nunc Dimittis from the first and secondchapters of Luke's Gospel. Oc

is a Greek Psalter of the sixth

century written in Latin characters and is at Verona. Odis a

purple Psalter of the seventh century at Zurich. Oe at StGall is a Psalter of the ninth century, written partly in Latinand partly in Greek.

P and Q. Two palimpsests at Wolfenbuttel, the formerbelonging to the sixth and the latter to the fifth century. P,

jjt appears, came from Bobbio and was afterwards at Weissen-burg, Mayence, and Prague. Q, together with a portion ofUlfilas's Gothic Bible, has been employed to receive the worksof Isidore of Seville. The codices were edited with great careby Tischendorf in 1869.

R. Nitriensis, ofthe sixth century: in the British Museum:consists of 48 leaves containing some 516 verses from Luke'sGospel, over which and a manuscript of 4000 verses of theIliad, the Syriac works of Severus of Antioch were written in

the ninth century. The palimpsest was brought from theNjtrian Desert in 1847, and deposited in the British Museum.(Scrivener, i. 145, Plate VI, 17.)

S. Vaticanus 354 : one of the earliest manuscripts of theGreek New Testament that bears an exact date. At the endis written, typify 17 rifxia SeXrot airct\ Sta x«ipoy ipoC MixaljXliovaxov dfiaprwXoO fnjv) Maprim a, foepqi e, top? r, erovs rvvf,pSiKTiwvos f , i.e. at six o'clock on Thursday, 1st March6457 in the 7th Indiction 1 or 949 A.D.

T». Of the fifth century: in the Museum Borgianum atRome: written probably by a Coptic monk: unfortunatelya mere fragment containing only 17 leaves from Lukeand John: is written in two columns, that on the left con-taining a Sahidic version. Tu

, similar small fragments ofJohn in St. Petersburg of the sixth century. T\ also of

'An Indiction is a cycle of fifteen years, computed by the Greeks from 1stSeptember 312 a.d. Its introduction was ascribed to Constantine the Great. SeeScrivener, i., App. C, p. 380.

7o GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II.

the sixth century, a fragment of Matthew, formerly in the

possession of Bishop Porfiri Uspenski of Kiev, and now at

St. Petersburg. Ta, of the seventh century, in Rome, part of

a Sahidic-Greek Evangeliarium, containing a few verses from

Matthew, Mark, and John. Te, of the sixth century (?), at

Cambridge, consists of four verses, Matthew iii. 13-16. T h

(Tk in TiGr. p. 450), three leaves from Matthew xx. and

xxii. T"r,fragments of six Greek-Coptic and three Greek

Gospels of the ninth and tenth centuries, but possibly the

seventh and eighth, published by Amelineau in vol. xxxiv.

of the Notices et Extraits de la Bibliotheque Nationale, 1895,

363 ff. ; c/.v. Dobschutz in the Lit. Cent.-Blatt., 1895,42, 1857.

T contains the double conclusion of Mark's Gospel. Two1,

similar leaves at Oxford which once belonged to Woide, but

by a different hand from T".

To these Graeco-Coptic fragments there is now to be added

two chapters of John's Gospel (iii. 5-iv. 49), in Greek and

Middle Egyptian, written in the sixth century. They are

published by W. E. Crum and F. G. Kenyon in the Journal

of Theological Studies, i. 3 (April 1900), pp. 415-433. The

find contains no remarkable readings. The editors call its

text neutral, and think it helps to show that Egypt was the

home of such correct and upright texts. (Tw Greg.)

U. NANIANUS, so called from a former possessor: of the end

of the ninth or beginning of the tenth century : in Venice

:

a very beautiful and complete manuscript of the Gospels,

with ornamentations in gold. (Scrivener, i. 137, Plate IX. 22.)

V. Formerly at Mount Athos, now in Moscow : of the ninth

century: first employed by Bengel and Wettstein through

the medium of G. B. Bilfinger.

W. Various small fragments : W" of the eighth century in

Paris : a fragment of Luke. W b of the eighth century (or

the ninth) in Naples : a palimpsest with parts of Matthew,

Mark, and Luke. Wc of the ninth century at St Gall : a

palimpsest, containing fragments of Mark and Luke, per-

haps once bilingual, Greek-Latin. Wd of the ninth century

CHAP. II] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 71

in Cambridge. We of the ninth century : part of John, at

Mount Athos, Oxford, and Athens. W of the ninth century :

in Oxford: fragment of Mark. W« of the ninth century:

consisting of 36 palimpsest leaves with 497 verses from

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in the British Museum.

Wh of the ninth century : in Oxford : part of Mark. W'-m in

Paris, of the seventh to the eighth or ninth century : frag-

ments of Mark and Luke, of which W and W k are printed

in Omont's Catalogue des Manuscrits Grecs, Latins, Francois,

ft Espagnols et des Portulans, recueillis par feu Emmanuel

Miller, Paris, 1897. Wn of the seventh century, in Vienna:

fragments of John. W° of the ninth century, in Milan : 16

mutilated palimpsest leaves, containing portions of Matthew,

Mark, and Luke.

X. MONACENSIS, written at the end of the ninth or

beginning of the tenth century, now in Munich, contains the

Gospels, with lacuna?, and a commentary, in the order

Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. Scrivener, i. 343, Plate XIII.

38; for contents see ibid., p. 152.

X b. Fragment containing Luke i. i-ii. 40, hitherto reckoned

among the minuscules and numbered 429 ; also in Munich.

Y. Belonging to the eighth century, in the Barberini Library

at Rome : 6 leaves containing John xvi. 3-xix. 41.

Z. A palimpsest in Dublin of the fifth or sixth century, con-

taining 295 verses of Matthew's Gospel. Scrivener, i. 153;

Plate VII. 18.

The Roman alphabet not being sufficient for the number

of uncial manuscripts, recourse was taken to those letters of

the Greek and Hebrew which have a distinct form from those

already employed. It was proposed by others to reserve the

Greek letters for those manuscripts no longer extant, whose

text can be reconstructed from a number of kindred manu-

scripts as their common archetype.

r. Of the ninth or tenth century : part in Oxford and part

in St. Petersburg, the former having been obtained from

Tischendorf in 1855 and the latter in 1859: contains the

whole of Luke and John, but Mark is defective from iii.

34 to vi. 20, while Matthew is still more defective. The writing

of the manuscript was finished on a certain Thursday, the

27th November, in the eighth year of an indiction. Tischendorf

accordingly fixed its date as 844. It was previously assigned

by Gardthausen to the year 979. Scrivener, i. 134, Plate XII.

35-

A. SANGALLENSIS, written at the end of the ninth or

beginning of the tenth century : now at St. Gall, where it was

probably transcribed by an Irish monk: has an interlinear

Latin version, and was not, therefore, like D, intended for

church but for school purposes. The Codex has the four

Gospels cqmplete with the exception of John xix. 17-35.

In Mark the text shows a closer agreement with CL than

in the other Gospels. The manuscript has been copied from

one written scriptione continua, and in consequence the words

are often wrongly divided. See G8below, p. 77.

Q*-4. Small fragments brought from the East by Tischendorf,

of which a belongs to the seventh century, and &"* to the

seventh, sixth, and seventh or eighth century respectively.

The first is in Leipzig, the others in St Petersburg. Or*

were formerly in the possession of Bishop Porfiri of Kiev.

A. Of the ninth century : contains the Gospels of Luke and

John entire : evidently the second part of a minuscule brought

to St. Petersburg by Tischendorf, No. 566 eTT (Greg.) 1: mar-

ginal scholia are affixed to four passages in Matthew—viz.

iv. 5, xvi. 17, xviii. 22, xxvi. 74, giving the readings of to

'IovScukov, i.e. the lost Gospel according to the Hebrews, and

its subscription runs, eypa<f>i) xai avTefiXqOn « Twi/'IepoaroXvfiois

iraXatwv avriypa<pwv twv iv to opei ayl(p airoiceifiivasv iv

oTi'xo«y P<pt&' (2514) Kt<f>a\ats rve (345). The manuscript is in

the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Scrivener.i. 131, Plate XI. 30.

Cf. von Dobschiitz, Zwei Bibelhandschriften mit doppelter Schriftart

(TA. Lz., 1889, iii. 74 f.).

1 See Scrivener, i. p. 160, under A. This minuscule seems to be omitted from

Scrivener's list. See below, p. 185.

CHAP. H.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 73

E- ZACYNTHIUS, a palimpsest of the eighth century from

Zante, now in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible

Society in London : the earliest manuscript with a commentary

:

has the same system of chapter division as B, and is oftener

found supporting B against A than vice versa.

IT. Of the ninth century : contains the Gospels almost

complete : once the property of a Greek of Smyrna called

Parodps: procured by Tischendorf for the Emperor of

.Russia.

2. Of the sixth century : written on purple with gold and

silver lettering and 17 miniatures, being the earliest manu-script to contain such: rescued from obscurity in 1879 byOscar v. Gebhardt and A. Harnack, who discovered it at

.Rossano in Calabria : hence designated as Codex Rossanensis

:

is nearly related to N. Scrivener, L 124, Plate XIV. 43.

O. v. Gebhardt, Die Evangtlien des Matthaus und des Marcus aus

dent Codex Purpureus Rossanensis herausgcgeben (T. und U., L 4,

1883). A. Haseloff, Cod. Pur. Rossanensis. Die Miniaturen der

gricehischtn Evangelitn-Handschrift in Rossano. Nach photograph-

ischen Aufnahmen herausgegeben. Leipzig, 1898 (contains 14 facsimiles

of the text and 15 photographic plates). Vide S. Berger in Bull.

Crif., 1899, 6 : also F. X. v. Funk, Die Zeit. des Cod. Rossanensis in

the Hist. Jahrbuch der Gbrresgeschellschaft, xvii. 2, 1896, 331-344.

$. Codex Beratinus, of the sixth century : at Berat in

Albania : like the last a purple Codex with silver writjng

:

contains portions of Matthew and Mark : seen and published

by Batiffol. Scrivener, i. 166, Plate XV.*. Fragments of the eighth or ninth century at Athos: con-

tains Mark ix. 5 to the end, Luke, John, Acts, seven Catholic

Epistles, Romans to Philemon, and Hebrews : exhibits afifer

Mark xvi. 8 the same double conclusion as is found in L andone §inai manuscript. On some readings of ¥, see Lake in

the Journal of Theological Studies, No. i p, 88 ; ii. pp. 290-292.Q. Of the eighth or ninth century : in the Monastery of

Dionysius at Athos : contains the Gospels entire.

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II.

Acts andCatholic

Epistles.

74

The last-mentioned codices have not yet been thoroughly

collated, some of them having been only recently discovered.

The following are indicated by Hebrew letters.

2 Of the ninth or tenth century: in the Monastery of St.

Andrew at Athos : contains the Gospels with lacunae.

y GREGORIANUS, a purple manuscript from Cappadoca

now admitted to be part of N.

-|a-i3 Several leaves dating from the fifth to the ninth century,

discovered at Sinai by J. R. Harris and published by 'him

(Biblicalfragmentsfrom Mount Sinai, 1890): T2 contains the

double conclusion of Mark: 1» is a purple fragment of the

seventh century containing a few verses from the first chapter

of Luke, perhaps only a quotation.

p. Swete indicates with this letter the fragment cited above

as T' which exhibits the double conclusion of Marks Gospel.

See his Gospel according to St. Mark, pp. xcn., xcix

-1 An Oxyrhynchus fragment of the fifth or sixth century,

published by Grenfell and Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyrt

Part I. with eight Plates, London, 1898: contains only Mark

x. 50 f. and xi. IO f. : cited by Swete. (T« Greg.)

Part II. of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (1899. PP- 1-8) contains

a fragment of John's Gospel (cc. i. and xx.) from a sheet of a

papyrus codex written between 200 and 300 A.D. This is one

of the earliest fragments that have been discovered of a

papyrus book (not a roll). It exhibits already the abbrevia-

tions usually found in theological manuscripts, such as

62 m% IX WA. The Codex agrees with x in several

readings not found elsewhere. (T« Greg.) See Addenda, p. xv.

The second group is composed of manuscripts of the Acts

and Catholic Epistles which are distinguished from those in the

first by affixing the exponent , at the bottom of the symbol.

x A B exhibit the Acts and Catholic Epistles complete

:

E2D have the Acts all but entire

:

K L have the Catholic Epistles complete:

C P have the greater part of them.


For k A B C D F* (a few verses of the Acts), see above.

E2. Laudianus 35, in Oxford, written at the end of the

sixth century: bilingual, Latin-Greek, the Latin occupyingthe place of honour on the left : breaks off at Acts xxvi. 29

:

the text very peculiar and somewhat like that of D. Themanuscript was formerly in Sardinia, and was probablybrought to England by Theodore of Tarsus in 668. It wasemployed by the Venerable Bede (d. 735) in his Expositioof the Acts and afterwards in his Expositio Rctractata.

Archbishop Laud presented the manuscript with many othersto the University of Oxford. Fell and Mill made use of it.

Scrivener, i. 121, Plate X. 25.

G2. Of the seventh century, a single leaf in St. Petersburg

containing Acts ii. 45—iii. 8, torn from the cover of a Syriacmanuscript.

G". Of the ninth century, a palimpsest of six leaves in Romecontaining portions of Acts xvi. 32-xviii. 20. (Vat Gr. 2302.)H2. Ninth century, in Modena, has the Acts with some

lacunae.

I2 . Fragments in St Petersburg of the fifth and seventh cen-

turies: four leaves from three different manuscripts of the Acts.Kg. Of the ninth century : brought to Moscow from Athos

:

contains the Catholic and Pauline Epistles.

L2 . Written at the end of the ninth century: in the Angelica

Library at Rome: contains the Acts from c. viii. onwards, the

Catholic Epistles, and the Pauline down to Hebrews xiii.

P2 . Of the ninth century: formerly in the possession of

Bishop Porfiri of Kiev and now at St. Petersburg : publishedbyTischendorf: contains Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epistles,and Apocalypse, with several lacuna.

Sj. Of the eighth or ninth century : at Athos : containsActs, Catholic Epistles, Romans, portions of 1 and 2Corinthians, and Ephesians.

Sir A palimpsest of the fifth century: in Rome : rediscoveredby Batiffol

: consists of fragments of Acts, James, 1 and 2Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians,


Pauline

Epistles.

Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, i Thessalonians, i and 2

Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews.

The third group is composed of manuscripts of the Pauline

Epistles. Of these there is a comparatively large number, which

may be taken as indicating the important position ascribed to

Paul even in early times, tt, however, is the only Codex that

contains his Epistles complete ; in D L they are almost com-

plete, and A B C E F G K exhibit the greater part of them.

For s ABC, see above.

A is defective in 2 Cor. iv. 1 3-xij. 6 inclusive.

B breaks off at Hebrews ix. 14, consequently 1 and 2

Timothy, Titus, and Philemon are wanting.

D2. CODEX CLAROMONTANUS: takes its name from Cler-

mont near Beauvais. The manuscript was written in the sixth

century, and is bilingual in Greek and Latin, having the

Greek on the left-hand page. The Greek is wanting in

Rom. i. 1-7. 27-30, and in 1 Cor. xiv. 13-22. In Gal.

v. 9 D2reads SoXo't, and in verse 14 ev vfxlv, in both places

agreeing with Marcion. At least nine hands are distin-

guishable in the manuscript, one of whom corrected the text in

over 2000 places in the ninth or tenth century. Two leaves

are palimpsest, their text being written over part of a play

of Euripides. Hebrews has evidently been copied into the

Codex from a different manuscript by a later scribe. Before

it is a list of " versus scribtuarum sanctarum," one of the

oldest stichometric catalogues of the books of the Old and

New Testaments, which is derived from an early Greek

original. This Catalogus Claromontanus is given in West-

cott's History of the Canon, App. D, xx. p. 563, and in his

Bible in the Church, App. B, p. 309- See also Zahn,

Ceschichte des N. T. Kanons, II. 157-172, 1012; Jiilicher,

Einleitung, § 40. Thirty-five leaves of Codex D2were stolen

by John Aymont in 1707, but afterwards restored by their

purchasers, some of them in 1720, and the others in 1729.

(See Plates II. and III.)

E3. Sangermanensis, of the ninth century : also Greek-

Latin : brought from St. Germain de Pres to St. Petersburg

during the Revolution : in the Greek merely an incorrect tran-

script of D2 , and may therefore be dismissed. See p. 179 ri. I.

F2. AUGIENSIS, of the ninth century: another Greek-

Latin manuscript : defective in Rom. i i-iii. 19 ; i Cor. iii.

8-16; vi. 7-14; Col. ii. 1-8; Philemon 21-25 •" Hebrews from

the first only in the Latin. The manuscript was formerly at

Reichenau (Augia Dives, hence its name). It was purchased

by Bentley in 1718 for 250 Dutch florins, and is now at

Cambridge. An editiori of it was published by Scrivener lit

1859. For F*, see above, p. 66.

Scrivener, An exact transcript of the Codex Augiensis . . . to which

is added a full collation of fifty manuscripts containing various

portions of the Greek N. T., 1859. F. Zimmer, Der Codex Augiensis

eihe Abschrift des Boernerianus (ZfwTh., 1887, i. 76-91).

Gj. Boernerianus, of the ninth century, so called from

Professor C. F. Boerner of Leipzig, who purchased it in 1705 :

now in Dresden. It is a Greek-Latin manuscript, the Latin

being interlinear. It is manifestly the second part of A. andhas a close affinity with F

8, though the Greek of F was not

copied from G, as Zimmer and Hort assert. The fact is rather

that both are derived from one and the same original, in whiche.g. o>i yayypa wa vofitjv efei, sicut cancer ut serpat, was foundin 2 Tim. ii. 17, and r/fxeda Se SovXwfievot, eramus autemservientes, in Gal. iv. 3. This manuscript contains someinteresting Irish verses. 1 At the end of Philemon there

stands the title irpot AaovSaiaiaa;, ad laudicenses, but the

Epistle that should have followed has been lost.

P. Corssen, Epistularum Paulinarum codices graece et latine scriptos

Augiensem, Boemerianum, Claromontanum examinavit, inter se

1 "To Rome to come, to Rome to come,

Much of trouble, little of profit,

The thing thou seekest here,

If thou bring not with thee, thou findest not" ; etc., etc.

See Scrivener, i. 180.

comfaravit, ad communem originem revocavit. Specimen primum,

1887. Alterum, 1889.

H3

. Written in the sixth century, one of the most valuable

manuscripts, but unfortunately incomplete. Its leaves were

used in 975 and 1218 to cover some manuscripts at Mount

Athos. Forty-one of these have been rescued, of which 22

are now in Paris, 8 at Mount Athos, 3 in St. Petersburg,

3 in Moscow, 2 in Turin, and 3 in Kiev. They contain

portions of 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians,

1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews. The

value of the manuscript is indicated in the subscription, which

runs, "I, Euthalius,1 wrote this volume of the Apostle Paul

as carefully as possible in stichoi, so that it might be read

with intelligence: the book was compared with the copy

in the library at Gcsarea, written by the hand of Pamphilus

the saint." 2 The subscription may of course have stood in

the original of H, and simply been copied into it along with

the text, as in the case of the minuscules 15, 83, and 173 of

the Acts. But no matter, it serves to locate the text of

this manuscript, and it is one of our main witnesses for

Euthalian the so-called Euthallan Recension of the Acts and Catholic

Recension.Epjstles

In or previous to the year 396, a deacon called Euthalius,

afterwards known as Bishop of Sulce,3 published an edition

of the Acts and Catholic and Pauline Epistles, in which,

following the rules laid down by the Greek schools of

oratory, the text was carefully broken up into lines, the

length of which depended on the sense {sense-clauses), and

divided into paragraphs or chapters. Euthalius also pro-

vided a system of Church lections, added a summary of

contents to the various chapters, and catalogued the quota-

1 Or Evagrius. The name is difficult to decipher. See l«low, pp. 188 ff.

- 'E-ypa+ct leal <{t»«>T|y Kara tiva^iv <rrtix^' T<f5c -rh TeCXot nayAou toB

4*ocrT(fAoi. irpij lyypa/inbv xol tvKardKntnrTov kviyvwaiv, . oKT«flMJ8ij SJ ii

|8l0Aos irpil t! Ir Ka.trapfa avTlypivpov ttjj /3iBM<>ei)K7)j toD oylou n<./jc/>[Aoi< x«<pl

ytypatipivov qvtov.

3 Perhaps in Sardinia, see below. Cf. Scrivener, i. p. 63 n. I.

tions from the Old Testament and elsewhere in the separateEpistles and in the entire group. This edition becamea sort of model for later times, and seems to have been madeuse of for the Armenian version among the rest. Thecomparison of the manuscript with those of Pamphilus,as well as other additions, would seem then to have beenmade on the occasion of a later revision. Ehrhard, however,thinks that we have the autograph edition of this systemin Codex H, but that Evagrius is to be read instead ofEuthalius in the place where the name has been erased.This view is combated by Dobschiitz, and in part rightly.

Working independently of both, Conybeare, from Armeniansources, establishes the year 396 as the date of Euthalius.But in a parchment manuscript of the eleventh centuryin the library of the Laura at Mount Athos, Wobberminfound a fragment of a dogmatic treatise with the inscription,

ECOaXlov eTrto-Koirou IovXkijs ofiokoyla irtpi t»}c SpOoSogovirlcrrews, from which he makes out that Euthalius lived inthe second half of the seventh century and that Sulce wasin Sardinia. See G. Kriiger in the Lit. Cent. Blatt i8qqNo. 14.

Omont, Notice sur tin trh ancien manuscrit grec en onciales desipitresde S. Paul, Paris, 1889. J. A. Robinson, Euthaliana, Textsand Studies, iii. 3, 1895. (See S. Berger, Bull. Crit., 96, 8.) Th.Zahn, Euthaliana, Theol. Lit. Blatt., 1895, 593. 601. Ehrhard, Dercodex H ad Epistolas Pauli und Euthalius diaconus, Eine palaeo-graphisch-patrologische Untcrsuchung in the Centralblatt fiir Biblio-thekswesen, 1891, pp. 385-411. E. v. Dobschiitz, Ein Beitrag zurEuthaliusfrage, in the same magazine, 1893, pp. 49-70 ; Euthalius-studien in the ZKG. xix. pp. 107-154 (1898) : also, Euthalius, in thePRE3

,v. pp. 63 1-633 (1898). Islinger, Die Verdienste des Euthalius

urn den neutestamentlichen Bibiltext, Hof. 1867 (Prog.). ConybeareOn the Codex Pamphili and date of Euthalius, in the CambridgeJournal of Philology, xxiii. 241 (1895). R. L. Bensly, The Hark-lean Version etc., pp. 9, 27 (1889). See also J. A. Robinson, Textsand Studies, vi. 1 ; C. Butler, The Lausiac History of Palladiusp. 104 ff., and note 2, p. 188 below.

8o GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OI CRITICISM. 8l

See above, p. 75-K

2

U

m[ Codex Ruber, of the ninth century: four leaves

written in bright red ink or other colouring matter, two of

them in London and the other two in Hamburg.

N„. Of the ninth century, consisting of two leaves with por-

tions of Galatians and Hebrews : in St. Petersburg.

O . Of the ninth century, two leaves in the same library

containing portions of 2 Corinthians.

Ob. Of the sixth century, one leaf with part of Ephesians

:

in Moscow.

Q,2 . Of the fifth century, five papyrus leaves with fragments

of 1 Corinthians : in St. Petersburg.

R2

. Of the seventh century, a single- leaf with part of 2

Corinthians : in Grotteferrata.

S 2 . See above, p. 75.

T K. A few sentences from 1 Timothy. See TiGr., p. 44'-

T s. Two leaves containing 1 Corinthians i 22-29, written in

the ninth or tenth century, and published simultaneously with

T- Gregory now designates T* as T" «"•', and T» as T" Paul.

3,. See above, p. 75-

I14. A fragment of papyrus containing part of 1 Corinthians,

cc. i., ii., Ill-, written in the fifth century.

The first seven verses of the first chapter of Romans have been

published in The OxyrhymhusPapyri,?zr\.U. (pp.8 f., Plate II.).

The fragment is probably a schoolboy's exercise. It is written

in a large rude uncial hand, and dates Jrom the firstjialf of

the fourth century. In verse 7 it reads KY XPY IHY.

Apocalypse. There are fewest manuscripts of the Apocalypse. It is

found entire only in S A B, while C and P exhibit portions

of it. In the Apocalypse, however, it is to be observed that

Codex B is not the famous Codex Vaticanus 1209, but a

much later manuscript 2066, dating from the end of the

eighth century. It would be better, therefore, with someeditors, to call it Q or B„.

Altogether the number of Greek manuscripts is asfollows 1

:

—

Uncials :

Gospels, ....Acts and Catholic Epistles,

Pauline Epistles,

Apocalypse, .

73

19

28

7

Cursives,Total, 127

3702

In closing our survey of the extant uncials, it is to be borne Book-handin mind that we are not at liberty to regard even the oldest

and hand

of them as presenting the very form of the New Testament n I

-

e

C°mmon

autographs. The books of the New Testament, at all eventsthe majority of them, were not originally intended for publi-cation at all, while the others were meant for only a limitedcircle of readers. Now these recent papyrus discoveries haveshown conclusively what a vast difference existed even inthose days between the book-hand and what we may call thehand of common life and business. A glance at Kenyon'sPaleography of Greek Papyri will show how fundamentalis the distinction between literary and non-literary papyriThat writer states that in many cases the difference is justas marked as between handwriting and print at the presentday, and he instances also the distinction between the book-hand and the charter-hand of the Middle Ages. Of coursedocuments of this or the other class may occasionally befound written in the hand that is not the usual one, a pre-scr.pt.on, eg., in book-hand, or conversely a literary text inthe hand ofcommon life. The greater part of Aristotle's workon the Polity of the Athenians, for instance, has been pre-served in the common hand. This papyrus, which is

1 See Scrivener (Miller), i. p. 397'

F


attributed to the first century of the Christian era, is the work

of four scribes. But only one of these writes in a style

approximating to the book-hand ; the other parts are written

in a very cursive style on the back of an old account, probably

bv one who had borrowed a copy of the work for a short

time and transcribed it with the help of two or three friends

or slaves. Kenyon quite properly instances this as an illus-

tration of the manner of the origin and propagation of the

New Testament books, and suggests that this mode of pro-

pagation has to be considered in connection with times of

persecution. Our very oldest manuscripts are superb codices,

editions de luxe, such as could be prepared only in an age

when the Church had attained a position of affluence and

power The distinction referred to above is one that has had

but little attention paid to it hitherto, as is shown by the

illustration given in Harris's excellent work on the New

Testament autographs. It is manifest at the same time that

this consideration is of great importance in trying to under-

stand the origin and dissemination of the various readings

that occur in our manuscripts. It is just a pity that

Kenyon has not given a sample of this manuscript of Aris-

totle in his book, seeing that the latter is more accessible to

the ordinary student than the complete facsimile edited in

i8qi by the Trustees of the British Museum, or the Plate

published in the second volume of the work of the Pateo-

graphical Society.

Uncial and A further consideration is emphasised by means of these

minuscule discoveries-viz. that no distinction of time can be

SCript '

drawn between the uncial and cursive hands found in the

manuscripts. Even in the very earliest documents the hand

of common life displays a very cursive character, and a

fairly cursive uncial hand with ligatures is not necessarily

later than an uncial hand without ligatures. It is somewhat

different in the case of writing on parchment:here the o d

distinction of uncial and minuscule manuscripts is rightly

maintained, only we must guard against supposing that the


minuscule hand and the cursive are quite the same thing ;nor

must we forget that for a considerable time the older uncial

and the later minuscule scripts were in use together. 1 The

sharp line of demarcation, therefore, which has hitherto been

drawn in the textual criticism of the New Testament between

these two classes of manuscripts has no real justification in fact

The present account, however, is intended merely as a survey

of the position of things up to the present, and the following

description of the minuscules is subject to that limitation.

(&.) SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT MINUSCULES.

When the Greek New Testament began to be printed, the Minuscule*,

editors had necessarily to be content with indifferent and late

minuscules, and even those who followed them, like Bentley and

Lachmann, thought they were at liberty to disregard these

altogether and to found their text exclusively on the oldest

uncials. They forgot that the text of a late manuscript may be

derived from a very early and good source through compara-

tively few intermediaries, and that it is possible to reconstruct

a lost original by means of a comparison of several witnesses.

Accordingly, in more recent times, English editors like

Tregelles, Burgon, Ferrar, Hoskier, and Scrivener have rendered

great service in the way of collating manuscripts, and the last-

mentioned as well as Gregory in Germany has also catalogued

them. At the present moment a systematic investigation in

this department is being carried on in Berlin. Most of the

minuscules are still written on parchment which began to be

mixed with paper in the ninth century,and was ultimatelysuper-

seded by it. Various minuscules contain commentaries and

other additional matter,such as the List of the Seventy Apostles,

short Biographies of the Apostles, Summaries of the journeys of

St. Paul, or notes as to the date and place of the composition of

the different books. When dates are given in the manuscripts,

1 Compare the remarks of Grenfell-Hunt on the papyrus (and vellum) books

and their respective handwritings in Part II. of the Oxyrhynchiis Papyri, p. 2 f.


they are still as a rule computed in the Byzantine manner,

reckoning from the Creation of the world (5508 B.C.). In only

a few cursives is the date reckoned from the Birth of Christ.

Since the time of Wettstein the minuscule manuscripts

have been indicated by Arabic numerals, the numbers in each

of the four groups beginning with i, so that one and the

same manuscript may have three or four numbers— i8ew. e.g.

being i^Acts, ^Paul, and 5iApoc, while 209evv is the same

as 95 Acts, 108 Pau '. and 46 AP°C - It is still more awkward

that in the two principal works on the minuscules, that of

Scrivener and of Gregory, the recently discovered manu-

scripts are numbered differently. Our enumeration will follow

that of Scrivener.

Minuscules of the Gospels.

1 (Acts I, Paul 1). Of the tenth century, but according to

others of the twelfth or the thirteenth, in Basel, with beautiful

miniatures which were stolen prior to i860. The manuscript

was borrowed by Reuchlin and used by Erasmus for his

second edition. (Scrivener, i. 137, Plate IX. 23.)

2. Of the twelfth century, though some strangely suppose

the fifteenth: also in Basel: formerly purchased for two

Rhenish florins : printed by Erasmus.

3. Of the twelfth century, in Vienna, lent to Erasmus for his

second edition.

4-41 are all in the National Library at Paris. 4-9 and 38

Fenar Group, were used by Stephen. The most notable among them is 13,

together with 69, 124, 211, 346, 348, 556, 561 (788), 624, and

626, which are remarkable for their very peculiar form of

text and their additions.1 Luke xxii. 43, 44 is found after

Matthew xxvi. 39, and John vii. 53-viii. 11 after Luke xxi. 38.

The subscriptions, moreover, state that Matthew was written in

Hebrew eight years after our Lord's Ascension, and contained

2522 prinaTa and 2560 stichoi, Mark pie/iaum ten years

1 Facsimiles of 13, 69, 124, 346 are given in Abbott's Collation of Four Im-

portant Manuscript! (Dublin, 1877); see Scrivener, i. 343, Plate XIII, 4°.

after the Ascension with 1675 pnfiara and 1604 stichoi, LukeeA\>7i/«rT« fifteen years after with 3803 {lege 3083) pnfiara and

2750 stichoi, and John thirty-two years after with 1938 pnfiara.

These manuscripts were referred to a common archetype bythe Irish scholar Ferrar, and were accordingly denominatedthe Ferrar Group, and indicated by the letter 3» before that

symbol was appropriated to the Codex Beratinus. Most of

them came from Calabria, and another has lately been added to

the number. Their additions, however, as Rendel Harris shows,

are rather of Syrian origin. In the first edition I ventured to

suggest that these manuscripts might go back to Lucian the

Martyr (d. 312) of whom Jerome makes mention, saying that

he knew of codices quos a Luciano (et Hesychio) nuncupatespaucorum hominum adserit perversa contentio, quibus ....nee in novo testamento profuit emendasse, cum multarumgentium linguis scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse quaeaddita (cod. E edita) sunt. That, however, is not possible in theevent of the so-called Syrian recension being thework of Lucian,

which Hort indicates as possible. In any case, these minusculeshave preserved to us a very early attempt to restore the text.

16 is noteworthy as being written in four different colours

according to the contents. The continuous narrative is

written in green, the words of Jesus and the Angels are in

red and occasionally in gold, the words of His followers are in

blue, while those of the Pharisees, the multitude, and of the

devil, are written in black.

28. Contains relics of a very ancient text and bears someresemblance to D.

33. Written about the tenth century : the " queen of thecursives": its text bears a greater resemblance to that of

B, D, L than does that of any other cursive. The manuscriptis much damaged, but 34, which is equally old, is still in

splendid condition, as though it were fresh from the hand of

the artist. (Scrivener, i. 343, Plate XIII. 39.)

38. Sent by the Emperor Michael Palsologus to St. Louis(d. 1270).

51. At Oxford : text resembles that of the Complutensian.

59. At Cambridge : has many points of connection with D.

61. Of the fourteenth or fifteenth century. This is the

notorious Codex Montfortianus, now in Dublin, which derives

its name from one of its later possessors. It was this manu-

script,« codex apud Anglos repertus," that decided Erasmus

to insert in his third edition of 1522 the passage of the Three

Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v. 7, 8- It was probably written

by a Franciscan monk of the name of Froy or Roy. Its

twin brother, the parchment codex Ravianus (Rau), formerly

numbered 1 10, and now in Berlin, which also contains the

passage, proves to be nothing more than a transcript of the

text of the Complutensian. Manuscripts, it may be observed,

continued to be prepared long after the invention of printing.

Melanchthon, e.g., wrote out the Epistle to the Romans three

times in Greek ; and the manuscript in the Zurich Library

hitherto cited as 56 1>aul <s nothing else than a copy of

Erasmus's printed edition of 15 16 made by Zwingli in the

following year.

69. Cf. 13 above, and see J. R. Harris, Origin of the

Leicester Codex of the New Testament, 1887. (Scrivener,

i. 343, Plate XIII. 40.)

7; and 78. Formerly in the fine library of Matthias

Corvinus, King of Hungary (d. 1490).

90. In this manuscript the Gospels are in the order John,

Luke, Matthew, Mark.

106. Would be important, but has been lost sight of since

the time of Wettstein.

140. Presented to Pope Innocent VII. by the Queen of

Cyprus. This manuscript reads SirjpdpwQi in Luke i. 64,

therein agreeing with the Complutensian.

146-153. In Rome, came from Heidelberg.

1 54-1 56. Once the property of Christina, Queen of Sweden.

157. In Rome: its text is said to bear a considerable

resemblance to the quotations found in the early Christian

writer Marcion. See below, p. 211.


164 The subscription of this manuscript states that it was

compared with certain ancient manuscripts in Jerusalem.

205-215 and 217 are in Venice, being part of the donation

of Cardinal Bessarion. 209 contains the whole of the NewTestament, and was the Cardinal's own copy which he hadwith him at the Council of Florence in 1439.

218-225 are 'n Vienna.

226-233 afe in the Escorial.

237-259 are at Moscow, with the exception of four at

Dresden.

263-320 are in Paris, with the exception of 272, which wasremoved thence to the British Museum.274 exhibits the shorter conclusion of Mark's Gospel in

the lower margin. (See Plate X.)

405-418 are now in Venice, and, like U, once belonged to

the Nani family.

422-430. In Munich.

431. This manuscript is sometimes stated to have perishedat Strassburg, in the war of 1870, like 180 Acts. This, how-ever, is incorrect.

452. In Parma, one of the most superb codices.

. 473- Of the ninth and tenth centuries, a purple manuscriptwith gold lettering, said to have been written by the EmpressTheodora. See under N. above, and note, p. 151.

481, dated 7th May 835, is the earliest manuscript of theGreek New Testament bearing an exact date.

531. Written in a microscopic hand.

604. Written in the twelfth century, now in the BritishMuseum, exhibits 2724 variations from the Textus Receptus,and has besides 270 readings peculiar to itself. It is the onlywitness we know that supports that peculiar form of the secondpetition of the Lord's Prayer found in Marcion in the secondcentury, and in Gregory of Nyssa in the fourth, e\6ira> todytov wvevfid aov i<p' iJ^Sc /cai Kadapttrdrw i^ua? (Luke xi. 2).

1

1 See Bliss's Pratfatit to his edition of Luke, pp. lxix f. (1897), and compareHastings' Dictionary of the Biblt, iii. p. 144 ; Hoskier, above, p. 5 ; below, p. 21 1.


743 has the double conclusion in Mark.

107 1. See under D, p. 66.

In his Gospel according to St. Mark, Swete cites frequently,

in addition to those just mentioned and those of the Ferrar

Group, 1,28,33,66, 109, 118, 131, 157,209,238,242,299,435,

473,475.556>570,736.

Acts.

2 and 4. Used by Erasmus.

7-10. Used by Stephen.

J 5, 8 3> 173- These, like x in the Old Testament and H3 ,

were compared with the Codex of Pamphilus

—

i.e. were

faithfully copied from such an exemplar.

33. The parent manuscript of Montfortianus. See above,

p. 86.

42. Closely related to the Complutensian.

52. Once in the possession of Stunica, the chief editor of the

Complutensian. It has now disappeared.

61 has been designated the most important minuscule of

the Acts. This, however, is an exaggeration.

137 supplements D E where these are defective.

1 58. Used by Cardinal Mai to supply the defects of Codex B

in the Pauline Epistles.

162. Of the fourteenth or fifteenth century, now in Rome : a

bilingual in Latin and Greek : contains the passage 1 John v. 7.

182. Numbered 1 10 by Hort, who calls it one of the best of

the cursives.

220. One of the finest manuscripts of the latter part of the

New Testament.

232. An equally superb copy, on which a monk called

Andreas bestowed three years' labour.

246. Written in gold letters for Charlotte, Queen of Cyprus

(d. 1487).

419. Written in 800 by the Empress Maria, after being

divorced by Constantine VI.

CHAP. II.'] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 89

Pauline Epistles.

7. Used by Erasmus.

56 and 66 are quite worthless, being simply copies ofErasmus's printed text. (See above under 6i e").

67. A valuable manuscript on account of its corrector havingevidently made use of an exemplar with a text very closelyakin to that ofB M.

80 bears a close resemblance to 69"'.

Apocalypse.

1. This was the only manuscript at Erasmus's commandfor this part of the New Testament. It is defective in thelast chapter from verse 16 to the end. For the rest it exhibitsa fairly good text. (See p. 3 f.)

36. A text akin to x.

38 has a text resembling that of A C.

68. Resembles A.

95 does so still more. This last has the reputation of beingone of the best minuscules of the Apocalypse.

.The number of minuscules under each class is, according

to Scrivener (Miller), as follows :—

Gospels, ,326Acts and Catholic Epistles, . . . 422Pauline Epistles, ... .497Apocalypse, ,g4

2429A great many New Testament manuscripts are in England.

Some are in the possession of private individuals, like thoseat Parham Park in Sussex belonging to Lord de la Zouche.In 1870-72 the Baroness Burdett Coutts brought with her fromJanina in Epirus over one hundred manuscripts, of whichsixteen were of the Gospels, one of them belonging to theFerrar Group, and as many were Evangeliaria. There are

9o GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. CHAP. H.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 91

136 manuscripts of the New Testament in the British

Museum.

The number in Great Britain is . 438

In the National Library of Paris, . . . 298

In Germany 14°

In Italy 644

For the total number of Greek manuscripts arranged accord-

ing to countries, see Scrivener, i., Indices I., II., pp. 392 ff.

What a vast number of manuscripts are still waiting to be

examined is shown by the account given by Dr. von der Goltz.

Accompanied by Dr. G. Wobbermin, he made a journey to

Athos in the winter of 1897-98, and there in that ancient

Monastery, the Laura of St. Athanasius, he found, among about

1800 manuscripts altogether, including Lectionaries, some 250

codices of the New Testament, of which only a very few have

been noted by Gregory. And these manuscripts may be of

the very utmost importance, as witness the further statement

of the same explorer. He was looking through the manu-

scripts of the Apostolos, to which he and his companion had

to give most of their attention, when his eye fell on one written

in the tenth or eleventh century, containing the following note

before the Pauline Epistles: yeypd<j>9ai airo avriypa<f>ov iraXaio-

tcctou, o5 trelpav eXaftopev ws eTriTerevypevou tic rwv eiy ij/xay

e\Q6vru)v 'Qptyevous roptcv tj 6(ii\iZv ei? tov airotrroXov ....

ev oh ouv TrapaXXdrrei pip-oi'y irpos tu vvv dirocrroXtKa, SiwXijv

Tt)v Xeyopivtjv Trapc6i}Kap.ev e£a>6ev, Iva pij popia-Qn Kara trpoa--

OiJkijv tj Xei\lsiv qp.apTrjcr8at tovti to diroarroXiKOV. And from

the subscription at the end of the Pauline Epistles we learn

that the manuscript, or, as von der Goltz believes, the exemplar

from which it was copied, was written by a monk called

Ephraim. See further in von der Goltz, Eine textkritische

Arbeit des zehnten bezw. sechsten Jahrhunderts herausgegeben

nach einem Kodex des Atliosklosters Lawra. Mil einer Doppel-

tafel in Lichtdruck. Leipzig, 1899. (Texte und Untersuch-

ungen, Neue Folge, ii. 4); and compare below, p. 190.

Literature.—On aevv, see Hoskier, above, p. 5.

On 13, see W. H. Ferrar, Collation offour important Manuscriptsof the Gospels, edited by T. K. Abbott, Dublin, 1877. J- P. P.

. Martin, Quatre manuscrits du N. T., auxquels on pent ajouter uncinquilme, Amiens, 1886. J. R. Harris, On the Origin of the FerrarGroup, London, 1894. K. Lake, " Some new members of the FerrarGroup of MSS. of the Gospels," in the Journal of Theological StudiesI. i. pp. 1 1

7-1 20. The well-known manuscript of the pre-LutheranGerman Bible, the Codex Teplensis, has the words from John viii. j" in the morning he came again into the temple," after Luke xxi. 38^an arrangement similar to that which is characteristic of the FerrarGroup, in which John vii. 53-viii. n is found after Luke xxi. 38.See S. Berger, Bull. Crit., 1894, p. 390. See Addenda, p. xv.

On 561, Codex Algerinae Peckover, see J. R. Harris in theJournal of the Exegetical Society, 1886, 79-96.

On 892="-, see Harris, "An Important Manuscript of the N. T."in the Journal of Biblical Literature, ix., 1890, 31 ff.

On Minuscules of the Apocalypse, see Bousset, Textkritische, Studien in T. und U., xi. 4.

C. R. Gregory, "Die Kleinhandschriften des N. Testaments"(Theologische Studien fiir B. Weiss., Gottingen, 1897, 274-283).

E. J. Goodspeed, "A Twelfth Century Gospel Manuscript"(Biblical World, x. 4).

F

(c.) LECTIONARIES.

Till quite recently the Lectionaries, or Books of Church Lectionari^Pencopae, were even more neglected than the minuscules.And yet they are reliable witnesses to the text of the Bible inthe provinces to which they belong, on account of theiroffical character and because their locality can be readilydist«ngu,shed. The slight alterations of the text occurring athe begmning of the pencopae, and consisting usually in the•nserfcon of the subject of the sentence or of\n introductory^cause, are eas.ly recognisable as such, and deceive no one.It .s not always easy to determine the date of such booksbecause the uncial hand was employed in this sort of manuSipt'much longer than in the other, Among the oldest,^J

9 2 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II.CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OK CRITICISM. 93

is 135, a palimpsest (of which there is a considerable number

among the Lectionaries), assigned by Tischendorf to the

seventh century, and 968, written on papyrus and ascribed to

the sixth century, which was found in Egypt in the year

1890. When these Lectionaries originated has not yet been

clearly made out. 1 Up till the present 980 Evangeliaria—i.e.

Lessons from the Gospels—have been catalogued, and 268

Apustuli or Praxapostoli—i.e. Lessons from the Acts and

Epistles. Some of them are magnificently executed ;some,

alas, have been sadly mutilated. 117, in Florence, is a very

beautiful codex; and 162, in Siena, is perhaps " one of the

most splendid Service-books in the world." 235 may have

been written in part by the Emperor Alexius Comnenus

( 108 1 - 1 1 1 8). 286 is the Golden Evangeliarium on Mount Sinai,

dating from the ninth to the eleventh century, though the

tradition of the monks says that it was written by no less a per-

sonage than the Emperor Theodosius (d. 395). Tischendorfs

352-360 are nowin the National Libraryat Paris. 355 isprinted

in Omont's Catalogue (see above, p. 71). 45" 1 is a fragment

of black parchment inscribed with gold letters preserved at

Vienna.2 40 is kept in the Escorial along with the reliques of

St. Chrysostom, and regarded as his autograph.3 Bilingual

Lectionaries are also found, in Greek and Arabic for example.

The arrangement of these Service-books varies with the time

and region in which they were composed. Several fragments

which were formerly regarded as parts of manuscripts of the

1 Zahn asserts that traces of a system of Lections are to lie found as early as in

Irenacus, and likewise in Codex D. Einhiluw;, ii. 355, on Luke i. 26.

J On Luke viii. 15 Tischendorf observes that in 49"' (a Lectionary of the

tenth or eleventh century, now in Moscow, presented to the Monastery of the

Mother of God toD /Sporroxfou by Niccphorus, Metropolitan of Crete, and Antistcs

of Laccdremon, in 1312) the lection cij rij t(a iKK\r,ata! ended with this

verse (1 5) and the words attached to it, " And so saying He cried, llethathath cars

to hear, let him hear," and that the additional verses were not read cit tV

^yd\V " iKKKnaiav, but vv. 20, 21-25 followed immediately after the words

ir iiro/ioi-p (v. 15)._

3 On the " Livre d'Kvangiles repute avoir appartenu a S. Jean Lnrysostomc,

(f.Ch. Graux, in the Kcvue ilc J'hilohgie, Avril 1887.

Gospels should perhaps beclassed among the Evangeliaria

—

e.g.

the solitary leaf of a Bible manuscript Wiirtemberg is knownto possess, and the Tubingen Fragment, formerly classed

among the uncials as R of the Gospels, but now enumeratedas 481^1. An important Syriac Lectionary will fall to beconsidered under the head of the Versions.

For further details, reference must be made to Scrivener,to TiGr., and now especially to Gregory, Textkritik, i. pp.327-478-

2. Versions.

Our second source of material for the reconstruction of the Versions.

text of the New Testament is the early Versions. Thevalue of their testimony depends on their age and fidelity.

When did the first versions originate ? This question remindsus of the Inscription on the Cross, a portion of which is still

exhibited in Rome. It was written in Hebrew, Greek, andLatin. But we may get further back still. Palestine at thetime of Christ was a country where the most diverse lan-guages and dialects came into contact with each other. Inthe last century B.C. a transformation had occurred, whichmight be regarded as a counterpart to the supplanting ofNorman French by English, or of Low by High German.Aramaic had already taken the place of the old Hebrew,and after the time of Alexander came the intrusion of Greek'and later still of Latin. Some of the disciples of Jesus boreold Hebrew names, like James ('Irj^oc) and John (Wi^f) •

others had names wholly or partly Aramaic, as Cephas(-Peter), the cognomen of Simon, and Bartholomew; whileothers, again, had Greek names, as Philip (fc/w™,) andAndrew ('AvSptus). To the question what language JesusHimself spoke, the most probable answer is that it wasAramaic with a Galilean colouring. " Thou art a Galileanthy speech bewrayeth thee," said the Jerusalem girl to Peter'The Galileans, like the Babylonians and the Samaritans wererecognisable by their not distinguishing the gutturals sosharply as the pure Jews did. At the same time, Jesus

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II.

East.

West.

South.

94

certainly understood the Hebrew of the Old Testament.

But those words of His that have been preserved are

Anmzxc-talitha, abba, and so is sabaqtani in Matthew xxvn.

46 and Mark xv. 34, if that is the original form of the text,

and not asabthani, as a number of manuscripts show.

In what language, however, the first record of the preach-

ing of the Gospel was made, whether it was in the classic

Hebrew of the Old Testament or in the Aramaic of the time,

is still subject of dispute.' But as this question is of

moment only for the original sources, and even then for

only a certain part of the New Testament-viz. the Gospels-

it does not fall to be considered here. We have to do only

with those versions that are derived from the Greek, and

again with those of them only that are important for the

criticism of the text, which are the oldest.

The versions which are of consequence here may be placed

under three or four heads..

In the East, Antioch, with its semi-Greek, semt-Synan

population, very early became the centre of, the new faith,

which, indeed, obtained its name there, and must very soon

have established itself in Damascus and Mesopotamia. In

that region the form of Aramaic now commonly known as

Syriac was spoken.

In the West, Greek was mostly spoken and understood,

even in Rome. Paul consequently, and others as well as he,

wrote to Rome in Greek. At the same time, the need must

have existed, even in the second century, of having the Gospel

in the Latin language in parts of Africa, in the north of

Italy and in the South of Gaul. Quite as early, perhaps,

the new faith spread to Egypt, which at that time was a

kind of centre of religious culture, and so we find in Egypt

not one but several versions in various dialects.

The Gothic version of Ulfilas deserves special mention

as being the oldest monument of Christianity among the

> Cf. Eusebius, Dcmom. Evan., Hi. 7, «5. ^P^P" "> ****».« t»i ..,» t.8

I„„.8 7p.*i» -T P(«» Xf**r«> "» "T* *"* "«"ArfM*».». Zahn-

GK -

i. 33 ; Theoph., v. 64 ; Laud. Const., xvn. 9.


Germanic people, and valuable too in the criticism of the

text.

L. J. M. Bebb, Evidence of the Early Versions and Patristic

Quotations, etc., in Studia Biblica, ii., Oxford, 1890. Lagarde, DeNovo Testamento ad Versionum Orientalium fidem tdendo. Berlin

{1857); with slight alterations in his Ges. Abhandlungen, 1886,

pp. 84-119. Reprinted 1896. Urtext (see p. 7). Copinger (see

p. 6). An earlier bibliographical work is the Bibliothtca Sacrapost .... Jacobi Le Long et C. F. Boerneri iteratas curas ordine

disposita, emendata, suppleta, conlinuata ab A. G. Masch. Halle,

1778-90, 410. Pars I., De editionibus textus originalis. Pars II.,

De versionibus librorum sacrorum (3 Vols.). R. Simon, Histoire

critique des versions du N. T., 1690. Nouvelles observations sur le

texte et les versions du N. T., 1695.

(a.) SYRIAC VERSIONS.

The Bible used in the Syrian Church has long and deservedly Peshitto.

borne the honourable appellation of "the Queen of theVersions." It was first published in 1555 at the expense ofthe Emperor Ferdinand I. by J. Albert Widmanstadt withthe assistance of a Syrian Jacobite called Moses, who camefrom Mardin as legate to Pope Julius III. The type for this

edition was beautifully cut by Caspar Kraft of Ellwangen.All the branches into which the Syrian church was dividedin the fifth century have used the same translation of theScriptures. To this day the Syriac New Testament wantsthe five so-called Antilegomena—viz. 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John,Jude, and the Apocalypse—a sufficient proof that it goes backto a time and a region in which these books were not yetreckoned in the Canon of the New Testament. In place ofthese it contained in early times an alleged Third Epistle ofPaul to the Corinthians, and an Epistle of the Corinthians toPaul (cf. below, p. 142). To distinguish it from other Syriactranslations, this Version has been called by Syriac scholars,since the tenth century, the Peshitto—i.e. the " Simple "

or

perhaps the "Common," which is sometimes pronounced

Peshitta (*«riD ,t?>?) and spelt simply Peshitto.

When and where was this translation made? An ancient

Syrian tradition asserts that it was done by the Apostle

Thaddaeus, who came on a mission to Abgar Uchama

—

i.e.

Abgar the Black—King of Edessa, after the death of Jesus,

which mission, they say, arose out of a correspondence that

Abgar had previously had with Jesus. Another tradition

ascribes it to Aggaeus (Aggai), the disciple of Thaddaeus, and

it is even attributed to Mark the Evangelist. It is also said

that Luke was by birth a Syrian of Antioch, a tradition which

may preserve an element of truth.

The earliest notice of a Syriac Gospel is found in Eusebius's

Ecclesiastical History, iv. 22. That historian mentions that

Hegesippus (c. 160-180) quotes certain things from the

Gospel of the Hebrews—i.e. of the Palestinian (?) Jewish

Christians, and from the Syriac (sc. Gospel), and particularly

from the Hebrew dialect, showing that he himself was a con-

vert from the Hebrews («c te toO KaO' 'E/Spalovs evayye\lov

K(Xt TOV HvptaKou KClt ASlOJf CK T))f 'E/^aiiSof Sta\fKTOV TIVU

TiBrjaiv, €fj.(t>alvo)v e£ 'E/3pa<W iavrov TreTricrTevKevui). This can

hardly be understood otherwise than as implying that a

Syriac version was already in existence. Whether it con-

tained all the four Gospels or only one of them, or Tatian's

Harmony of the Gospels, as Michaelis supposed and as Zahn

has recently shown some ground for believing, or whether

it contained a primitive Gospel, now perished, cannot be

established with certainty.

From the middle of the present century manuscripts of

this version have found their way into European libraries

in rrreat numbers. Some of these are inestimable. At least

ten date from the fifth, and thirty from the sixth century.

This is somewhat remarkable when we remember how small

a remnant of the Greek manuscripts has been preserved.

G. H. Gwilliam is at present engaged on an edition of the

Syriac Tetraevangelium for the University of Oxford on the

basis of forty manuscripts. The task might seem to be an

easy one, considering that these Syriac manuscripts display a

far greater unanimity in their text than is found in any written

in Greek. The difficulty in their case lies in another direction.

In the year 1842 a Syriac manuscript containing consider- Curetonian.

able portions of the Gospels was brought from Egypt and

deposited in the British Museum. It was afterwards pub-

lished by Dr. Cureton in 1858 with the title "Remains of a

very antient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac hitherto

unknown in Europe." Cureton himself thought he had dis-

covered the original of St. Matthew's Gospel in this version.

While this was easily shown to be a mistake, the question

as to the relationship between the Curetonian Syriac and the

Peshitto, whether the two texts are independent of eachother, or if not, which is the earlier and which the recension,

is not yet decided.

It seemed as if the solution of the problem was in sight Lewis,

when fragments of a Syriac palimpsest were discovered onMount Sinai in February 1892 by Mrs. Lewis and her sister,

Mrs. Gibson. These they perceived to be part of a very old

manuscript of the Gospels, and Professor Bensly of Cam-bridge recognised that their text was closely related to that

of the Curetonian. (See Plate V.) A second expedition wasmade to Sinai in the spring of 1893, when the fragments weretranscribed by Professor Bensly, F. C. Burkitt, and J. R. Harris.As Bensly died three days after their return, the manuscriptwas published by the others in 1894, with an introduction byMrs. Lewis. On a third visit to Sinai this lady completed thework of the triumvirate, and also published an English trans-lation of the whole. How, then, is this Sinai-Syriac or Lewis-Syriac, as it is called, related to the Curetonian and to thePeshitto ? The problem becomes more complicated still by theintroduction of a fourth factor, the most important of them all.

From early sources it was known that Tatian, 1 a Syrian and Tatian.

'The date of Tatian's birth is uncertain. Zahn decides for the year no. He wasin the prime of manhood by the year 160. See I Iastings, Bible Dictionary, ii. p. 697.

G

oS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II.

a pupil of Justin Martyr, composed a harmony of the Gospels

called the Diatessaron—i.e. to Sta rtaaapw edayyeXiov, an ex-

pression which may be taken either as referring to the four

Gospels or as a musical term equivalent to harmony or chord

This Harmony was in use among the Syrians till the fifth

century. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, informs us that he

destroyed 200 copies of it in his semi-Syriac, semi-Greek

diocese. 1 About the same time Bishop Rabbulas of Edessa

(407-435) instructed his presbyters and deacons to see that

all the churches possessed and read a copy of the Distinct

Gospel—i.e. not mixed or harmonised. The Lewis-Syr.ac

bears this very title, Gospel of the Distinct or Divided, which

is found also as the title of Matthew's Gospel in the Curetoman

version Tatian's Harmony has not yet been discovered in

Syriac but a Latin Harmony of the Gospels derived from it

has Ion- been known, and in 1883 a Harmony in Arab 1C was

published by Ciasca which proves to be a translation from the

Svriac made by Ibn et-Tabib (d. 1043) or a recension of it.

A" tin in 1836 the Armenian version of a Syriac Commentary

by Kp'hraem of Edessa (d. 373) was printed, and translated

into Latin in 1876. [Evangelii coucordantis expositio facta a

S Ephracmo doctor* Syro. In Latinum translata a J. B. Auclier,

ed G Moesin-rer. Venetiis.] Finally Theodor Zahn discovered

in the works of the Syriac writer Aphraates, who wrote between

r7 and 345, quotations which must be derived from this

Harmony of Tatian ; and isolated quotations from Tatian

are also found in later Syriac authors. And so the materials

are provided for deciding the question whether or not Tatian

made use of an earlier Syriac version in the preparation

of his Harmony, and how Titian), Syrc»(rcu,„), Syr- and

Syr*Ma»0 - are related to each other. The most probable view

perhaps is that T is the earliest form in which the Gospel came

to Syria, that in Syr", and Syr*™ we have two attempts to ex-

hibit T in the form of a version of the separate Gospels which

> See liclow, |>. 213, n. 3.

^ Tl.e Pesl.ilto, so indicated f.on. llic principal edit.,,,, l.y Scl.aaf, 1708-9.

chap. 11.] MATERIALS OK CRITICISM. 99

were not generally accepted, while Syr^ch actually succeeded

and passed into general use.

The interest attaching to this question may be learned from

the form in which the text of Matthew i 16 is given in these

witnesses. Syr** agrees exactly with our present Greek text,

but Syr"' presents a form which, when translated into Latin,

reads, Joseph cui desponsata virgo Maria gennit Jesum Chris-

tian. Now, the only Greek manuscripts that present a formcorresponding to this are four minuscules, 346, 556, 624 and626, which differ in this respect even from the other membersof the Ferrar Group to which they belong. In these four

manuscripts the verse reads,'W^ $ pi>i'TTtvQTlo-a (sic) Trapflevos

Ma/jiaM iyevvna-ev '\t]aovv rov Xeyopevoi' Xpio-rov. In the Latin,

however, this text is represented by a number of the oldest

manuscripts, seven at least, one of which omits the word virgo,

while two have peperit instead of gcnuit, and top Xeyo/uepop is

omitted. But in Syr*'" we find: Joseph: Joseph aulcin cui

desponsata (erat) virgo Maria gcnuit Jesum Christum. Thepassage is similarly cited in the recently published Dialogueof Timothcus and Aquila} along with two other forms, thus :

'luKwfi iyevv>]<Ttv rov 'Ia><ri;r/> top ItpSptt ilaplat, eg m eyewjOy'hicrouf 6 Xeyoficvos XptaTOf, /cui 'lustrhf eyeivijtrcp top 'Ujctovp toi/

Xeyonevov XpitTTop

The exact wording of Tatian can no longer be determined,but it is evident that of these three forms in which the verseis found, only one or none can be the original. If we hadno more than our oldest uncials or the great body of ourminuscules to go by, no one could have the slightest suspicionthat in our Greek text all is not in perfect order. But herein an old Syriac fragment from the far East, theresuddenly appears a reading which is also found in Latinwitnesses from the far West, and which is confirmed by four

1 Tlu Dialogues of Athanasim and Za.ekaeas, and oj Timothy and A./ni/aEdited with Prolegomena and Facsimiles l,y F. C. Conybeare (Oxford 1898 •

''""*" Oxomimia, Classual Series, Part nil.). See Notice in the Lit Chi

'

1099, No. 5, col. 154 f.

'


solitary Greek manuscripts, written probably in Calabria at

the close of the Middle Ages. How are these facts connected,

and how do they stand to the other two readings, that of the

common Greek text, and that of the Lewis-Syriac ? The

history of the text of the New Testament presents many such

problems,

l'hiloxemis- But Syrian scholars were not satisfied with those forms of

Polycarp.the New Testament already mentioned. In the year of

Alexander 819 (a.d. 508),1 a new and much more literal

version was made from the Greek at the desire of Xenaia

(Philoxenus), Bishop of Mabug 2 (488-518), by his rural Bishop

Polycarp. l'art of this version was published in England by

Pococke in 1630—viz. the four Epistles in the Antilegomena

not included in the Peshitto, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude.

Unfortunately this edition was prepared from a somewhat

inaccurate manuscript, which is now in the Bodleian Library.

The later European editions of the Syriac New Testament

took the text of these Epistles from Pococke's edition, which

was also the one used for critical editions of the Greek text.

In 1886 Isaac H. Hall published a phototype edition of

another manuscript of this version (the Williams MS.), the

property of a private gentleman in America, and corrected

from it the text of the Syriac New Testament issued by the

American Bible Society. The other parts of this version

have not yet been found, but the same American scholar

thought he discovered the Gospels in a ninth century

manuscript belonging to the Syrian Protestant College in

Beirut, and deposited in the Library of the Union Theo-

logical Seminary in New York.^ Bernstein thought he made

the same discovery in 1853 in a 'manuscript belonging to the

Angelica Library in Florence.

Thomas of On the basis of four manuscripts sent from Diarbeker in

iicraclca.1?^ to Dr Gloucester Ridley, Joseph White published,

1 Dates arc still reckoned in Syria according to the Greek era, counting from the

year 312 11. c.

2 Hierapolis, now Membiclsch on the Euphrates.

I. II. Hall, Syiim Maims, rift Gospels oj a Prc-If.irklmsian Version, 1883.

CIIA1'. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. IOI

between 1778 and 1803,' a version which he designatedby the name of Versio Philoxenia, and which still passesunder this title. But this so-called Philoxenian version is notthe identical version made for Philoxenus by Polycarp, buta revision undertaken by Thomas of Heraclea (Charkel), in

the year 616-7. This revision was made at Alexandriawith the object of making the Syriac text represent theGreek as closely as possible, even to the order of the wordsand the insertion of the article. The critical symbols usedby Homeric commentators, the asterisk and the obelus, aswell as numerous marginal notes, were employed to indicatethe various readings found in the manuscripts. And it is

very remarkable to observe that there were manuscripts inAlexandria at the beginning of the seventh century whichwere regarded by Thomas of Harkel as particularly wellauthenticated, but which deviate in a marked degree fromthe bulk of our present manuscripts, and which, especiallyin the Acts, agree almost entirely with Codex D, whichoccupies so singular a position among Greek manuscripts.A new edition of the Syriac text is necessary beforeany further use can be made of it in the criticism ofthe New Testament. Mr. Deane set himself to this task,going on the basis of sixteen manuscripts in Englandalone, but unfortunately he was unable to bring it to aconclusion.

The Apocalypse was first edited in 1627 by de Dieu at Apocalypse.Leyden, from a manuscript that had been in the possession ofScaliger. It is found in a few other manuscripts, in one, eg.that was transcribed about this same time for ArchbishopUssher from a Maronite manuscript at Kenobin on MountLebanon. It is not found in the Syriac New Testamentbut the later editions insert it from de Dieu. In Apoc"viii. 13, instead of " an eagle in the midst of heaven "

(eVfiea-ovpavnuaTt), the Syriac translator took it as "in the

> The Gospels appeared in 1778. the Acts and Catholic Epistles in 1799, andthe Pauline Epistles in 1803.'"' K

102 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OK CRITICISM. «03

midst with a bloody tail" (,u«roy, ovpa, aifia). Another

Syriac version, in which this error is avoided, was discovered

in 1892 by J.Gwynn in a Codex belonging to Lord Crawford,

and published by him as the first book printed in Syriac at

the Dublin University Press. Still more interesting is it to

know that in a manuscript, once the property of Julius Mohl,

and now in Cambridge, both the so-called Epistles of Clement

are found after the Catholic Epistles. This manuscript, part

of which was published by Bensly in 1889 (see above, p. 79)-

contains a note at the end to the effect that it was derived,

so far as the Pauline Epistles are concerned, from the copy

of Pamphilus.1

About the same time and in the same region, Paul of Telia

translated one of the best Greek manuscripts of the Old

Testament into Syriac almost as literally as Thomas of

Harkel, thereby doing immense service in the construction

of the Syriac Hexapla, a work of inestimable value for the

textual criticism of the Old Testament.

Evangelism Mention may be made here of another Syriac version of

Hierosolymi- the New Testament, the so-called Jerusalem or Palestinian

tanum. ^^ ^^ ^ Syr™"). This version, hitherto known

almost solely from an Evangeliarium in the Vatican of the

year 1030, was edited by Count Miniscalchi Erizzo at Verona

in 1861-4, and an excellent edition was published in 1892 in

Bibliothecae Syriacae a Paulo de Lagarde collectae quae ad

philologiam sacram pertinent. And now not only have two

fresh manuscripts of this Evangeliarium been discovered on

Mount Sinai by J. R. Harris and Mrs. Lewis, and edited by

Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson, but fragments of the Acts and

' In TischendorPs critical apparatus these fragments are indicated as SyrPl««<M

or as Syr"»i.lel It would be better to use the symbol SyrP*«Tl for the first

version of 508 made by Polycarp for Philoxenus, and Sy.~ for Thomas of

Harkel's recension of 616. Gebhardt's notation is as follows :-Syr* is the Cure-

Ionian j Syr» is the Peshitto j Syr* is the Harklean, of wh.ch agam Syr" is the

text Syr- the margin, Syr<« sub asterisco j Syr* is the Jerusalem Syr.acj while

Syr^"' is the text of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Zahn proposes to .nd.cate

the Philoxenian (Tischendorfs Syr>»<") by Syr', and the Harklean by Syr>;for the

Gospels he would employ Syr°, Syr', Syr" ; Syr', therefore, .s the I esh.tto.

Pauline Epistles have also been found and published, as well

as portions of the Old Testament and other Church literature.1

The dialect in which these fragments are written is quite

different from ordinary Syriac, and may, perhaps, bear a close

resemblance to that in which Jesus spoke to His disciples.

At what time and in what region this entire literature took

its rise is not yet determined with certainty. The Greek text

on which the Evangeliarium is based has many peculiarities.

In Matthew xxvii. 17, e.g., the robber is called Jesus Barabbas,

or, rather, Jesus Barrabbas, a fact known to Origen, but now

recorded only in a few Greek minuscules by the first or second

hand.

What used to be called the Versio Karkaphensis or

Montana is not really a version, but merely the Massoretic

work of a monastery school intended to preserve the proper

spelling and pronunciation of the text of the Bible.

No other branch of the Church has taken such pains as the

Syrian, faithfully to transmit and to circulate the Gospel.

From the mountains of Lebanon and Kurdistan, from the

plains of Mesopotamia and the coast of Malabar, and even

from distant China there have come into the libraries of

Europe Syriac manuscripts of the utmost value for the

textual criticism of the New Testament.

Literature on the Syriac Versions :

—

J. G. Christian Adler, Novi Testamenti Versiones Syriacae,

Simplex, Philoxeniana, et Hierosolymitana. Denuo examinalae el ad/idem codicum manu scriptorum .... novis observationibus atque

tabulis aere incisis illustratae. Hafniae, pp. viii. 206. With eight

Plates. 1789, 410. For the complete list of editions up to 1888, see

my Litteratura Syriaca (Syr. Gr., 2nd edition, pp. 20 ff.). Appendixthereto in Urt., 227 ff.; R. Duval, La Litterature Syriaque. Paris,

1899, pp. 42-67; TiGr., 813-822; Scrivener, fourth edition, ii.

6-40, with the help of Gwilliam and Deane ; The Printed Editions

of the Syriac New Testament, in the Church Quarterly .Review, 1888,

1 Land, in the Antcdota Syriaca, iv., 1875; Harris, Biblical Fragments fromMount Sinai, 1800 ; Gwilliam, in the Aiucdota Oxonitmia, Semitic Series, i. 5,

1893 ; ix. 1896 ; Lewis-Nestle-Gibson, Studia Sinaitica, vi.

104 GREEK NEW, TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II.

July, 257-297 ; G. H. Gwilliam, in the Studia Biblica et Eccksiastica

(Oxford), ii. 1890, iii. 189 1 ; F. C. Conybeare, The growth of the

Peshitta Version of the New Testament, in the American Journal of

Theology, 1897, iv. 883-912; Burkitt, in the Journal of Theological

Studies, i. (July 1900), 569 ff., referring to his forthcoming edition of

the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, says that he has had to go over the

Gospel quotations of St. Ephraem, and closes by saying, " I confess

that I am unconvinced that what we call the New Testament -

Peshitta was in existence in St. Ephraem's day, and I believe that we

owe both its production and victorious reception to the organizing

energy of the Great Rabbula, Bishop ofEdessafrom 411 to 435 a.d."

1. Till Gwilliam's edition of the Gospels appears, which has been

promised since 1891, the best edition will be the Editio Princeps of

Widmanstadt, 1555; then that of Leusden and Schaaf, Novum

Domini noslriJesu Christi Testamenlum Syriacum aim versione latina

aira et studio J. Leusden et C. Schaaf editum. Ad omnes editiones

diligenter recensilum ct variis Icctionibus mag/10 labore collectis

adornatum. Lugd. Bat., 1709, 4to. Ace. Schaaf, Lexicon Syriacum

concordantiale. The text reprinted by Jones at Oxford, 1805 ;the

editions of the London Bible Society, 1816 and 1826, and better

still, the Syriac and New-Syriac editions of the American

Mission in Urmia, 1846, and of the American Bible Society of New

York, 1868, 1874, and frequently (with the Nestorian vocalisation).

An edition is promised from the Jesuit Press at Beyruth, Nouveau

Testament Syriaque en petits caracteres, dapres plusieurs manuscrits

anciens, id. par le P. L. Cheikho.

The New Testament part of the Peshitto has been very much

neglected in the present century. On the O.T., investigations,

chiefly in the form of dissertations on most of the books, have been

published, establishing the relation of the Syriac to the Massoretic

text, the Septuagint, and the Targum. But almost nothing of this

sort has been done for the N.T., at least in Germany, since the time

of Michaelis and Ltihlein. The question has never once been taken

up how many translators' hands can be distinguished in the N.T.

J. D. Michaelis, Curae in Versionem Syriacam Act. Apost. cum

consec/ariis criticis de indole, cognationibus et usu vcrsionis Syriacae

tabularum Novi Foederis. Gottingen, 1755. C. L. E. Lohlein, Syrus

Epistolae ad Ephesios interpres in causa critica 'denuo examinatus,

Erlangen, 1835.

2. Cureton's Remains (1858) is now out of print. Till Burkitt's

CHAT. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 105

new edition appears its place will be taken by Baethgen's Retransla-

tion into Greek (Evangelienfragmente. Der griechische Text des

Curetonschen Syrers wiederhergestellt, Leipzig, 1885); and moreespecially by Albert Bonus's Collatio codicis Lewisiani rescripti

evangeliontm Syriacontm cum codice Curetoniano, Oxford, 1896; andby Carl Holzhey's Der neuentdeckte Codex Sinaiticus untersucht. Miteinem vollstiindigen Verzeichnis der Varianten des Codex Sinaitiais

und Codex Curetonianus, Munich, 1896. See A. Bonus, The Sinaitic

Palimpsest and the Curetonian Syriac, in the Expository Times, Mayx 895> P- 38° A"- The publications of T. R. Crowfoot, Fragmenta Evan-gelica, Pars I., II., 1870, 1872, and Observations on the Collations inGreek of Cureton's Syriac Fragments, 1872, contain useful material,

but there are a good many mistakes.

3. The Editio Princeps of the Lewis text is, of course, that ofBensly, Harris, and Burkitt, The Four Gospels in Syriac, transcribed

from the Sinaitic Palimpsest Cambridge, 1894. To this

must be added its complement by Mrs. Lewis, Some Pages of the

. Four Gospels retranscribed (with or without an English translation),

London, 1896; further, Last Gleanings from the Sinai Palimpsest,Expositor, Aug. 1897, pp. m-119; also, An Omission from the

Text of the Sinai Palimpsest, Expositor, Dec. 1897, p. 472. On thediscovery of the manuscript, see Mrs. Gibson, Now the Codex wasfound, .... Cambridge, 1893, and Mrs. Lewis, In the shadow ofSinai, .... Cambridge, 1898; also Mrs. Bensly, Our Journey to

Sinai, .... With a chapter on the Sinai Palimpsest. London,1896. See also Mrs. Lewis, The Earlier Home of the Sinaitic

Palimpsest, Expositor, June 1900, pp. 415-421. The text hasbeen translated into German by Adalbert Merx, who has added abrief but valuable critical discussion. Berlin (Reimer), 1897. Thesecond part, comprising the commentary, has not yet appeared. Seealso Gwilliam's notice of the editio princeps in the Expository Times,Jan. 1895, p. 157 ff.

4. On Tatian, the latest and best is Zahn, Evangelienharmonie,PRE 3

, v. (1898), 653 ff.; also his Forschungen, i. (1881), Tatian'sDiatessaron, ii. p. 286 ff. (1883), iv. (1891); Gesch. des Kanons, i

387-414, ii. 530-556. J. H. Hill, The earliest Life of Christ evercompiled from the Four Gospels, being the Diatessaron of Tatian(c. a.d. 160), literally translatedfrom the Arabic Version. Edinburgh,1893. J- R- Harris, The Diatessaron of Tatian, a PreliminaryStudy. Cambridge, 1890. The Diatessaron, a Reply, in the Con-

io6 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. CHAP. II] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 10;

temporary Review, Aug. 1895, in answer to W. R. Cassels, in the

Nineteenth Century, April 1895 ; also by the same writer, Fragments

of the Commentary ofEphrem Syrus upon the Diatessaron. London,

1895. . . J. H. Hill, A Dissertation on the Gospel Commentary

of S. Ephrem the Syrian .... Edinburgh, 1896. J. A. Robinson,

Tatian's Diatessaron and a Dutch Harmony, in the Academy, 24th

March 1894. Hope W. Hogg, The Diatessaron of Tatian, with

introduction and translation, in the Ante-Nicene Library. Additional

Volume .... edited by Allan Menzies. Edinburgh, 1897, pp.

33-138. W. Elliott, Tatian's Diatessaron and the Modern Critics.

Plymouth, 1888. I. H. Hall, A Pair of Citations from the Diates-

saron, in the Journal of Biblical Literature, x. 2 (1891), 153-155.

J. Goussen, Pauca Fragmenta genuina Diatessaroniana, appended to

the Apocalypsis S. Joannis Versio Sahidica, 1895. See also Baumer

in the Literarischer Handiveiser, 1890, 153-169; the article Tatian

in the Encyclopedia Britannica, and Hastings' Bible Dictionary, vol.

ii. p. 697 f.

5. On the later Syriac versions, see Urt., 228, 236 f. ; Gwynn,

The older Syriac Version of the four Minor Catholic Epistles,

Hermathena, No. xvi. (vol. vii.), 1890, 281-314. Merx, Die in der

Peschito fehlenden Briefe des Neuen Teslamentes in arabischer der

Philoxeniana entstammender Uebersetzung .... Zei/schrift fiir

Assyriologie, xii. 240 ff., 348 ff., xiii. 1-28. Bensly, The Harklean

Version of the Epistle to the Hebrews, . . . Cambridge, 1889. In

this edition will be found the subscription mentioned above, con-

necting the manuscript with that of Pamphilus. See Addenda, p. xv.

6. On the Jerusalem Evangeliarium, see Urt., 228, 237. Zahn,

Forschungen, i. 329 ff. Lagarde, Mitteilungen, i, m, iv. 328, 340.

A. de Lagarde, Erinnerungen an P. de Lagarde, p. 112 ff. Lewis

and Gibson, The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels re-

edited from two Sinai MSS. and from P. de Lagarde 's edition of the

Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum, London, 1899. The Lectionary

published in the Studia Sinaitica, vi., contains, in the N.T., passages

from Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Ephes., Philip., Col., 1

Thess., 1 and 2 Tim., Heb., James. See notice in the Expository

Times, Jan. 1898, p. 190 ff. The Liturgy of the Nile, published by

G. Margoliouth, 1896 (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Oct.

1896, 677-731, and also published separately), contains Acts xvi.

16-34. See also Woods, The New Syriac Fragments in the

Expository Times, Nov. 1893.

(b.) LATIN VERSIONS.

The name most closely associated with the Latin Versions Jerome,

of the New Testament is that of Jerome (Hieronymus). Thisscholar was born at Stridon, on the borders of Dalmatia,1

about the year 345, and educated at Rome. After leadingfor some time a hermit life in Palestine, Jerome returned toRome, and it was during his residence there, in the year 382,that he was urged by Pope Damasus to undertake a revisionof the Latin version of the New Testament then in use. Thishe did, and in 383 sent the Pope, who died in the followingyear, the first instalment of the work, the Four Gospels,accompanied with a letter beginning thus :—" Thou compellestme to make a new work out of an old ; after so many copiesof the Scriptures have been dispersed throughout the wholeworld, I am now to occupy the seat of the arbiter, as it were,and seeing they disagree, to decide which of them accordswith the truth of the Greek ; a pious task, verily, yet aperilous presumption, to pass judgment on others and oneselfto be judged by all." He anticipates that everyone, no matterwho, learned or ignorant, that takes up a Bible and finds adiscrepancy between it and the usual text will straightwaycondemn him as an impious falsifier who presumed to add toor alter or correct the ancient Scriptures. But he comfortshimself with the reflection that it is the High Pontiff himselfthat has laid this task upon him, and that the testimony ofhis jealous opponents themselves proves that discrepanciesare an indication of error (verum non esse quod variat, etiammaledicorum testimonio comprobatur) ; for if they tell us weare to rest our faith on the Latin exemplars, they must firstsay which, because there are almost as many versions asmanusenpts (tot enim sunt exemplaria paene quot codices) •

if it is to be the majority of these, why not rather go back to'See F. Bulie, Wo lag Stride,,, die Heimat <Us h. Hieronymus' in theF^f/:L^:ti Vienna" 898 - Aho/-a >---•/-"

io8 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OK CRITICISM. 109

the Greek original which has been badly rendered by in-

competent translators (a vitiosis interpretibus male edita),

made worse instead of better by the presumption of unskilful

correctors (a praesumptoribus imperitis emendata perversius),

and added to or altered by sleepy scribes (a librariis dormi-

tantibus aut addita sunt aut mutata). In a letter to his

learned friend Marcella, written in the year 384, he gives

instances of what he complains of, citing, e.g., Romans xii. 11,

where tempori servientes had hitherto been read instead of

domino servientes (tcmpio instead of Kuplw), and 1 Tim. v. 19,

"against an elder receive not an accusation," where the

qualifying clause, "except before two or three witnesses,"

was dropped, and also 1 Tim. i. 15, iii. 1, where humanus

servio was given in place of fidelis. In all three instances,

our most recent critical editions decide in favour of Jerome,

against the Old Latin Version. In the last instance cited, we

know of only one Latin-Greek manuscript that has avdpiiirivos

instead of tho-to'v, and that only in c. iii. 1, viz. D*. Jerome

accordingly issued an improved version of the New Testa-

ment, beginning with the Gospels. For this purpose he made

a careful comparison of old Greek manuscripts (codicum

Graecorum emendata conlatione sed veterum). In his ver-

sion he was also careful only to make an alteration when a

real change of meaning was necessary, retaining in all other

cases the familiar Latin wording. The Gospels were in the

order which has been the prevailing one since his day

—

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.

Augustine. We learn from the great Church Teacher AUGUSTINE, who

lived in Africa about the same time (354-430), that there was

an endless variety and multitude of translators (latinorum

interpretum infinita varietas, interpretum numerositas). He

tells us that while it was possible to count the number of

those who had translated the Bible—*'.*, the Old Testament—

from Hebrew into Greek, the Latin translators were innumer-

able ; that in the early age of the Christian faith (primis fidei

temporibus), no sooner did anyone gain possession of a Greek

Codex, and believe himself to have any knowledge of both

languages, than he made bold to translate it (ausus est in-

terpretari). The advice he himself gives is to prefer theItalic version to the others, as being the most faithful and Itala.

intelligible (in ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala prae-

feratur; nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sen-tentiae. De Doctrina Christiana, it. 14, 15). On the groundof this passage, the pre-Jeromic versions have been compre-hended under the title of the Itala, as distinguished fromJerome's own work, which is called the Vulgate, seeing that Vulgate,

it became the prevailing text in the Church of the MiddleAges. By the Itala, Augustine himself, however, must havereferred to a particular version, and, according to the usageof that time, the word cannot mean anything else than aversion originating in or prevalent in Italy—/.*, the North ofItaly, what is called Lombardy. It is not difficult to under-stand how it came to pass that Augustine used such aversion in Africa, seeing that he was a pupil of Ambrose,Bishop of Milan. In recent times Burkitt has revived theopinion that by Itala Augustine means neither more norless than Jerome's Revision of the Gospels. He demon-strates that Augustine's De Consensu, written about the year400, is based on Jerome's revised text. In this, Zahn 1

agrees with him on grounds that admit of no question so far

as this point is concerned. But Wordsworth-White 2 willnot admit the inference that Augustine must have meantthis Revision when he spoke of Itala in the year 397, seeingthat in his letter to Jerome,3 written in 403, he thanks Godfor the interpretation of the Gospel, " quasi de opere recentercognito/' while in his earlier letters to Jerome * he makes nomention of it: "quod mirandum esset si in opere ante sexannos publici iuris facto earn collaudasset." 6

• EmUilung, ii. 195. . Efibgu, ad Evangtlia, p. 656.3 No. 71 ; 164 in Jerome's letters.4 No. 56 (a.d. 394), 67 (397), 101 (402).» Burkitt's view was expressed more than three-quarters of a century ago by

C. A. Breyther, in a dissertation entitled, Dt vi quam antiouissimat versions

j 10 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II

(i.) Latin Versions before Jerome.

Old Latin Where, when, and by whom was the New Testament, or at

Texts. least Were parts of it, first translated into Latin? From the

passage in Augustine quoted above, we learn that it was done

by all and sundry in the very earliest times of the Christian

faith. Rome used to be regarded as the place where the

Latin versions took their rise. But it was observed that Greek

was very commonly employed as the written language at

Rome, especially among Christians. The first Bishops of Rome

have pure Greek names, and even the first representative of the

Roman Church with a Latin name, the Clement that wrote

the Epistle to the Corinthians about the year 95, even he

wrote in Greek. Moreover, when the relics of the Old Latin

Bibles began to be examined, it was observed that their

language, both in vocabulary and grammar, entirely agreed

African with that found in African writers of that age, and in some

things agreed with these alone. It is, of course, a fact that

the majority of the writers of that age known to us are

African. Till quite recently, therefore, it was held to be

tolerably well made out that the birthplace of the Latin Bible

is to be found in Africa. It was regarded by many as

equally certain, that in spite of the statements of Jerome

and Augustine, and in spite too of the various forms in which

the Old Latin Bible now exists, these all proceed from a

common origin, or at most from two sources, so that it was

not quite correct to speak of a " multitude of translators " in

the very earliest times. The settlement of this question is

rendered more difficult by the fact that, while the extant

copies of the pre-Jeromic Bible are undoubtedly very early,

they are few in number, and for the most part mutilated.

The reason of this is not far to seek. For, as time went on

and Jerome's new version came to be more and more ex-

clusively used, manuscripts of the earlier version lost their

quae extant latinat iv crhin evangeliorum IV. habmt (Metseburg, 1824). See

v. Dobschiitz, ThI.-., 1897, "35-

CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. Ill

Latin.

value, and were the more frequently used for palimpsests and

book covers. One has also to take into account how liable

the text of both was to be corrupted, either by the copyist of

an Old Latin Bible inserting in the margin, or even interpolat-

ing in the text, various passages from Jerome's translation that

seemed to him to be a decided improvement, or conversely,

by the scribe who should have written the new rendering

involuntarily permitting familiar expressions to creep in from

the old. It is estimated that we have about 8000 manuscripts

of Jerome's recension, of which 2228 have been catalogued byGregory. Samuel Berger, the most thorough investigator in

this field, examined 800 manuscripts in Paris alone. But onthe other hand, only 38 manuscripts of the Old Latin Versionof the New Testament are known to exist. The credit of

collecting the relics of these pre-Jeromic versions of the Oldand New Testament, so far as they were accessible at that

time, belongs to Peter Sabatier the Maurist (Rheims, 1743,

3 vols, folio).

In critical editions of the New Testament the manuscriptsof the pre-Jeromic versions are indicated by the small letters

of the Roman alphabet. They are the following :

—

1. Gospels.

a. Vercellensis: according to a tradition recorded in a

document of the eighth century this manuscript was written

by Eusebius, Bishop of Vercelli, who died in the year 370 or

371. Recent scholars, however, date it somewhat later. It is

written on purple with silver letters. The order of the Gospelsis that found in most of these Old Latin MSS.—viz. Matthew,John, Luke, Mark. The manuscript is defective in severalplaces.

The codex was edited by Irico in 1748, and by Bianchini in

1 749 along with some of the others in his Evangeliarium Quadruplex.This latter edition was reprinted, with some inaccuracies, in Migne'sPatrologia Latina, vol. xii. The manuscript was again edited by

I 12 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CIIAI*. II.

Belsheim ; Codex Vercelknsis. Quatuor Evangelia ante Hieronymum

laiine translata ex reliquiis Codicis Vercellensis, saeculo ut videtur

quarto scripti, et ex Editfont Iridium principc denuo cdedit (sic)

Jo. Behheim. Christiania, 1894.

b. Veronensis : of the fourth or fifth century, also written

with silver on purple. In this Codex, John vii. 44-viii. 12 has,

been erased. The manuscript is defective.

Edited by Bianchini (see above). A Spagnolo, L'Evangeliario

Purpureo Veronese. Nota (Torino, 1899. Estratta dagli Atti dell'

Accademia Reale delle Scienze di Torino).

c. Colbertinus : in Paris, written in the twelfth century, but

still containing the Old Latin text in the Gospels, though

exhibiting Jerome's version in other parts.

Edited by Sabatier, and again by Belsheim ; Codex Colbertinus

Parisiensis. Quatuor Evangelia ante Hieronymum latine translata post

editionem Petri Sabaticr cum ipso codice collatam denuo edidit Jo.

Belsheim. Christiania, 1888.

d. The Latin part of Codex D ; see p. 64 ff.

e. Palatinus : of the fourth or fifth century, written like

a b f i j on purple with gold and silver letters : now in

Vienna, with one leaf in Dublin.

Two other fragments were published in 1893 by Hugo Linke from

a transcript made for Bianchini in 1762. The entire codex was

edited by Belsheim, Christiania, 1 896. See von Dobschiitz in the

LCM., 1896, 28.

f. Brixianus, of the sixtli century, in Brescia. In their new

edition of the Vulgate, Wordsworth and White printed the

text of this manuscript underneath that of Jerome for com-

parison's sake as probably containing the text most nearly

resembling that on which Jerome based his recension. But

see Burkitt's Note in the Journal of Theological Studies, I. i

(Oct. 1899), 129-134, and the note to p. 139 in Addenda.

ffj. Corbeiensis I., contains the Gospel according to Matthew

alone. The manuscript formerly belonged to the Monastery


of Corbey, near Amiens, and with others was transferred to

St. Petersburg during the French Revolution.

ff2 . Corbeiensis II., written in the sixth century and now in

Paris : contains the Gospels with several lacunae.

On Belsheim's editions of ff, and ff2(1881 and 1887), see E. Ranke

in the ThLz., 1887, col. 566, and S. Berger, Bull. Crit., 1891,

302 f.

g,. Sangermanensis I., of the ninth century, in Paris,

exhibits a mixed text. The manuscript was used by Stephen

for his Latin Bible of 1538.

g2. Sangermanensis II., written in an Irish hand of the

tenth century, has a mixed text: in Paris (Lat. 13069).

h. Claromontanus, of the fourth or fifth century, now in

the Vatican : has the Old Latin text in Matthew only. Themanuscript is defective at the beginning down to Matt. iii. 1

5

and also from Matt. xiv. 33-xviii. 12.

' Edited by Mai in his Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio, iii.

257-288, and by Belsheim, Christiania, 1892.

i. Vindobonensis, of the seventh century, contains fragmentsof Luke and Mark written on purple with silver and gold.

Edited by Belsheim, Codex Vindobonensis membranaceus purpureus.... antiquissimac evangeliorum Lucae et Mara translationis Latinae

fragmenta ediditJo. Belsheim. Lipsiae, 1885 (cum tabula).

j (z in TiGr.). Saretianus or Sarzannensis.of the fifth century,

contains 292 verses from John written on purple. The manu-script was discovered in 1872 in the Church of Sarezzano, nearTortona, and is not yet completely edited.

Compare G. Amelli, Un antichissimo codice biblico Latino purpureoconservato nella chiesa di Sarezzano presso Tortona. Milan, 1872.

k. Bobiensis, of the fifth century, is perhaps the mostimportant of the Old Latin manuscripts, but unfortunatelycontains only fragments of Matthew and Mark. It is said tohave belonged to St. Columban, the founder of the monasteryof Bobbio, who died in the year 615. It is now preserved at

H

U4 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II.

Turin. See Burkitt on Mark xv. 34 in Codex Bobiensis in

the Journal of Theological Studies, i. 2 (Jan. 1900), p. 278 f.

1. Rehdigeranus, in Breslau, purchased in Venice by Thomas

von Rehdiger in 1569. Matthew i. i-ii. 15 and a good deal

of John wanting.

Edited by H. Fr. Haase, Breslau, 1865, 1866: Evangeliorum

quattuor vetus latino, interpretatio ex codice Rehdigerano nuncprimum

edita.

m. Does not represent any particular manuscript and should

properly be omitted here. It indicates the Liber de divinis

scripturis sive Speculum, a work mistakenly ascribed to

Augustine, consisting of a collection of proof-passages (testi-

monia) from the Old and New Testaments. All the books

of the latter are made use of except Philemon, Hebrews, and

3 John, but the Epistle to the Laodicceans is cited among the

number.

Fragmenta Novi Testamenti in translation latina antehieronymiana

ex libro qui vocatur Speculum emit et ordine librorum Novi Testamenti

exposuitf. Belsheim. Christiania, 1899.

nop. Are fragments at St. Gall : published in the Old Latin

Biblical Texts, see below, p. 131 f.

n. Written in the fifth or sixth century, has probably been

in the Library at St. Gall since its foundation. It contains

portions of Matthew and Mark, with John xix. 13-42.

o. Written in the seventh century, possibly to take the place

of the last leaf of n, which is wanting, contains Mark xvi. 14-20.

p. Two leaves of an Irish missal written in the seventh or

eighth century.

a2

. Is part of the same manuscript as n. It consists of a

leaf containing Luke xi. 11-29 and xiii. 16-34. It was found

in the Episcopal archives at Chur, and is preserved in the

Rhaetisches Museum there.

q. Monacensis, written in the sixth or seventh century, came

originally from Freising. Published in the Old Latin Biblical

Texts.

CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. "5

r or rsand r

2. Usserianus I. and II., are both in Dublin. The

former is written in an Irish hand of the seventh century, and

has several lacunae. r2belongs to the ninth or tenth century

and has an Old Latin text in Matthew resembling that of rvIt shows affinity with Jerome's text in Mark, Luke, and John,

of which, however, only five leaves remain.

Edited by T. K. Abbott, Evangeliorum versio antehieronymiana

ex codice Usseriano (Dublinensi), adjecta collatione codicis Usseriani

alterius. Accedit versio Vulgata. . . . Dublin, 1884, 2 Parts.

s. Four leaves with portions of Luke, written in the sixth

century. The fragments came originally from Bobbio, andare now in the Ambrosian Library at Milan. Published in

the Old Latin Biblical Texts.

t A palimpsest very difficult to decipher, containing portions

of the first three chapters of Mark, written in the fifth century,

and now at Berne. Published in the Old Latin Biblical

Texts.

v. Bound in the cover of a volume at Vienna entitled, PactusLegis RipuaricB; exhibits John xix. 27-xx. 11. Published in

the Old Latin Biblical Texts.

aur. Aureus or Holmiensis, written in the seventh or eighthcentury, exhibits the Gospels entire, with the exception ofLuke xxi. 8-30. An inscription in old English states thatthe manuscript was purchased from the heathen (the Danes ? )

by Alfred the Alderman for Christ Church, Canterbury, whenAlfred was King and Ethelred Archbishop (87 1-889). It wasafterwards in Madrid, and is now at Stockholm. It is reallya Vulgate text with an admixture of Old Latin readings.Published by Belsheim in 1878.

S. Is the interlinear Latin version of A (see p. 72), andis interesting on account of its alternative readings given in

almost every verse—e.g. uxorem vel conjugem for ywaiica,Matt. i. 20. Compare Harris, The Codex Sangallensis, Cam-bridge, 1 891.

On the Prolegomena found in many Old Latin and Vulgate manu-

n6 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II.

scripts of the Gospels, see Peter Corssen, Monarchianische Prologe

zu den vier Evangelien. Leipzig, 1896 (TU., xv. 1). This has

been supplemented by von Dobschiitz's Prolog zur Apostelgeschichte.

See also Jiilicher in the GGA., 1896, xi. 841-851. J. S. in the Revue

Critique, 1897, vii. 135 f. H. Holtzmann in the Th. Lz., 1897,

xii. col. 231 ff. A. Hilgenfeld, Altchristliche Prolegomena zu den

Evangelien in the ZfwTh., 1897, iii. 432-444.

2. Acts.

[ As for the Gospels,m

)

r

e. The Latin text of E. See above, p. 75.

g. Gigas Holmiensis, the immense manuscript of the entire

Latin Bible preserved at Stockholm. The text is Old Latin

only in the Acts and Apocalypse, the rest of the New Testa-

ment exhibiting Jerome's version. The manuscript was

brought to Sweden from Prague as a prize of war in 1648,

along with the Codex Argenteus.

The Acts and Apocalypse were edited by Belsheim, Christiania,

1879. On this see O. v. Gebhardt in the TALz., 1880, col. 185. Anew collation of this manuscript was made for W.-W. by H. Karlsson

in 1891.

g2. In Milan, is part of a Lectionary written in the tenth

or eleventh century, and contains the pericope for St. Stephen's

day, Acts vi. 8—vii. 2, vii. 51-viii. 4.

Published by Ceriani in his Monumenla Sacra et Pro/ana, i. 2, pp.

127, 128. Milan, 1866.

h. Floriacensis, a palimpsest formerly belonging to the

Abbey of Fleury on the Loire, and now in Paris, written

probably in the seventh century. It contains fragments of

the Apocalypse, Acts, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1 John, in this order.

(Tischendorf's reg. : Blass's f.)

The latest and best edition is that of S. Berger : Le Palimpseste de

Fleury. Paris, 1889.

p2 , written in the thirteenth century, exhibits a text with


an admixture of Old Latin readings in the Acts only. Themanuscript came originally from Perpignan, and is now in Paris,

No. 321. It was used by Blass.

Published by Berger : Un ancien texte latin des Actes des Apotres,

etc. Paris, 1895. See von Dobschiitz in the ThLz., 1896, 4;Haussleiter in the Th. Lbl., no. 9 ; Schmiedel in the L. CM., no. 33 ;

E. Beurlier, Bull. Crit., 1896, 32, p. 623.

s2. Bobiensis, a palimpsest of the fifth or sixth century at

Vienna, containing fragments of Acts xxiii., xxv.-xxviii., andof James and 1 Peter.

xr Written in the seventh or eighth century, contains the

Acts with the exception of xiv. 26-xv. 32. The manuscriptis preserved at Oxford and is not completely published.

w. Is the symbol given by Blass to a paper manuscript of

the New Testament written, it seems, in Bohemia in thefifteenth century, and now at Wernigerode. In the main it

exhibits Jerome's text even to a greater extent than p, butpreserves elements of the Old Latin, particularly in the latter

half of the Acts. The mixture is similar to that observed in

the Provencal New Testament,1 which is derived from a Latinmanuscript of this nature, and to that in the pre-LutheranGerman Bible. (See Urt., p. 127 f.)

On Acts, see especially P. Corssen, Der Cyprianische Text derActa Apostolorum. Berlin, 1892.

3. Catholic Epistles.h

)m LAs above.

S)

ff. Corbeiensis, at St. Petersburg, of the tenth century,contains the Epistle of James.

Edited by Belsheim in the Theologisk Tidsskri/tfor den evangelisk-lutherskeKirkeiNorge (N.S. Vol. ix. Part 2); also by J. Wordsworth,The Corbey St. James, etc., in Studia Biblica, i. pp. 1 13-150. Oxford,1885.

1 Photolithographed by CI4dat from a MS. at Lyons.

u8 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 119

q. Written in the seventh century, and preserved at Munich,

contains fragments of 1 John, and of 1 and 2 Peter. Thetext exhibits the passage of the Three Heavenly Witnesses

in 1 John v., but verse 7 follows verse 8.

Published by Ziegler in 1877, Bruchstiicke einer vorhierony-

mianischen Uebersetzung der Petrusbriefe.

4. Pauline Epistles.

m. As for the Gospels.

d e f g. The Latin versions of the Greek Codices D E F G.

gue. Guelferbytanus, of the sixth century, contains frag-

ments of Romans cc. xi.-xv., found in the Gothic palimpsest

at Wolfenbiittel. See p. 69.

Published by Tischendorf in his Anecdota Sacra et Pro/ana,

1855, pp. 153-158. See Burkitt, in theJournal of Theological Studies,

i. 1 (Oct. 1899), p. 134, and compare the note to p. 139 in the

Addenda, p. xv.

r. Written in the fifth or sixth century, came originally

from Freising, and is now at Munich : contains portions ofRomans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians,

1 Timothy, and Hebrews.

Ziegler, Italafragmente der paulinischen Briefe. Marburg, 1876.VVolfflin, Neue Bruchstiicke der Freisinger Itala (Munchener Sitz-

ungsberichte, 1893, ii. 253-280).

r2 . Also at Munich, a single leaf, with part of Phil. iv. andof 1 Thess. i.

r3 . In the Benedictine Abbey of Gottweih on the Danube:

fragments of Romans v. and vi. and of Galatians iv. and v.,

written on leaves used as a book cover.

Published by Ronsch in the ZfwTh., xxii. (1879), pp. 234-238.

x2

. At Oxford, of the ninth century, contains the PaulineEpistles : defective from Heb. xi. 34-xiii. 25.

See also Fr. Zimmer, Der Galaterbrief im altlateinischen Text, als

Grundlage fur einen textkritischen Apparat der Vetus Latina in the

Fathers.

Theologische Studien und Skizzen aus Ostpreussen. Konigsberg, i.

(1887), pp. 1-81.

5. Apocalypse.

The only manuscripts are m as for the Gospels, and g andh as for the Acts, h exhibits only fragments of cc. i and ii.,

viii. and ix., xi. and xii., and xiv.-xvi.

For the Old Latin Biblical Texts edited by Wordsworth andWhite, see below, p. 131.

On account of the small number of these manuscripts the Latin

quotations of the Latin Fathers are valuable, especially

"

those of Cyprian of Carthage,1 and after them the recentlydiscovered citations in Priscillian, who was the first to sufferdeath as a heretic in the year 385. In the Apocalypse wehave the quotations of Primasius, Bishop of Hadrumet (ca.

SSO), who used in his commentary on the Apocalypse notonly his own Old Latin Bible but also a revised version thesame as that used by the African Donatist Tyconius. Inattempting to classify these witnesses it was found that thetext of certain manuscripts coincided with that of the Bibleused by Cyprian—viz., in the Gospels k especially, in Acts h,and in the Apocalypse Primasius and h. This family hasaccordingly been designated the African.

Tertullian, a still earlier African Father, undoubtedly refersto the existence of a Latin Version in his time, but thequotations found in his Latin works cannot be taken intoaccount, for this reason, that in citing the New Testament heseems to have made an independent translation from theGreek for his immediate purpose. 2

'J. Heidenreich, Der neuteUamenlluhe Text bei Cyprian verglichen mil cUmVulgatatext. Eine textkritiuhe Untenuchuug zu den h. Schriften des Neue,,lestamentes. Bamberg, 1900.

2 This is the view of Zahn. Others, however, have no doubt that Tertullianmade use of a La,ln version. Hoppe, in his treatise, De sermone TertullianeoQuaes,ones Selectae (,897), p. 6 (de Craedsmis Tertulliani) says, " Permultasen,m (construcfo„es)T. mutuatus est vel ex scriptoribus graecis, quibus assiduestudu.t, vel ex l.brorum sacrorum translations latina graecismis abundante, qua

120 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. CHAP. II.J

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 121

Old Latin

Texts.

As for the quotations in Augustine, they are found to

resemble the text of f and q in the Gospels, particularly the

former, and that of q, r, and r3in the Epistles. To this group,

therefore, the name Italian has been given. It has, however, been

deemed necessary to regard this Italian family as being itself

a revised and smoother form of a still earlier version styled

the European, which is thought to be represented by g, g2 ,and s

in the Acts, by ff in the Epistles, and by g in the Apocalypse.

As illustrating the way in which the various forms deviate

from each other, take the text of Luke xxiv., verses 4, 5, II,

and 13 as exhibited by a b c d e f and the Vulgate (vg).

v. 4.—All the seven agree in the opening words, Et factum

est dum ; but after that there follows :—

(i)stuperent ac, mente consternatae essent b, vg; mente

consternatae sunt e, aporiarentur d, haesitarent f.

(2) de hoc a c f, de facto b, de eo d, de isto e*, vg.

(3) ecce a c d f, vg ; et ecce b e.

(4) viri duo a f, duo viri b c d e , vg.

(5) adstiterunt af, astiterunt c, adsisterunt d, steterunt be,

vg.

(6) iuxta illas a f, secus illas b c e, vg ; eis d.

(7) in veste fulgenti a f, vg ; in veste fulgente b c e, in amictu

scoruscanti d.

(8) v. 5 : timore autem adprehensae inclinantes faciem ad

terram a ; cum timerent autem et declinarent vultum in terram

b e f, vg ; conterritae autem inclinaverunt faciem in terram c

;

in timore autem factae inclinaverunt vultus suos in terra d.

(9) v. 11 : et visa sunt abc (visae) ef, vg; et paruerunt d.

(io)illis a, ante illos b, vg; apud illos ce, in conspectu

eorum d, coram illos f.

utebatur." And to this he adds, " Quam multa vocabula graeca in Tertullianeum

sermonem ex Itala quae vocatur ttanslatione redundaverint, discas ex Roenschii

libio cum impigritate consctipto, qui inscribitur, Itala und Vulgata, ed. sec, p.

238." The Itala is cited for sciant quia (p. 18), absque (p. 44), and for the use of

the superlative for the positive (p. 49). On this last the writer refers to Rdnsch,

p. 415, and adds, "ex Itala T. hunc usum aliquotiens assumpsisse videtur,

quamquam in universum vitat." Cf. Westcott, Canon, Part I., c. iii. p. 251 ff.

(n) tanquam a, sicut be, vg;quasi c d f.

(12) delira a, deliramentum bef, vg; (b spells -lirr-, and f

-ler-), deliramenta c, derissus d.

( 1 3) v. 13: municipium a, castellum b c d e f, vg.

(i4)stadios habentem LX ab hierusalem a, quod aberat

stadia sexaginta ab hierusalem b, quod abest ab ierosolymis

stadia sexag. c, iter habentis stadios sexag. ab hierus. d, quod

est ab hierosolymis stadia septem e, quod aberat spatio sta-

diorum LX ab hierus. f, quod erat in spatio stadiorum sexa-

ginta ab hierusalem vg.

(15) cui nomen a, nomine bcdef, vg.

(16) ammaus a, cleopas et ammaus b, emmaus c f, vg ;

alammaus d, ammaus et cleopas e.

Is not this almost exactly as Jerome said : tot exemplaria,

quot codices ? And when we take into account that all this

variety in the Latin manuscripts is not simply due to a differ-

ence in translation, but that a similar diversity exists in the

Greek,1 we can easily understand what a task it is to extricate

the original text from out these conflicting witnesses. At the

same time, we have evidence of the singular position in which

D stands to all the others ; while the last example also affords

an illustration of the way in which mistakes might arise.

The reading p ovo/xa in verse 13 would preclude any possi-

bility of misunderstanding. But suppose the reader or the

translator had before him a manuscript like D, in which the

reading was ovo/tart. What happened, we shall suppose, wasthis. The phrase, " Emmaus by name," was taken as refer-

ring, not to the village, but to the subject of the sentence

;

1 Thus we have, following the numbers given above, in verse 4 (i) awopuotiuand Siaropiuriat (or tiai-opcir), (2) iripi toistou and ir«pi airrov, (3) iSov and km1J01/, (4) avtptt 8i>o and Ivo aytptt, (5) twtartiaw and wapturrnKtigay, (7) nffffli)Ti aarpaTToiuri) (or Auuraa) and «> taBitatrriv aoTpanTovoais (or \ivkcus),

(8) <p0o£ui' (or <v <po0w) t> ytroptimv «ai k\wov<twv and tv(po$oi St -ytvo/icyai

"**""'' (9) ™ rpoTanra and to wpoauwev {avraiv); in verse II, (10) lywnav auravand its omission ; in verse 13, (14) t^Koyra and ikcitof t^xoyra, (15) f orcpa andovopan, ('6) Eji/ioom and ovKa^atvt. Of these (8), (15), and (16) are foundonly in D. In the case of (15) the very same variation is found at Tob. vi. 10 inthe two recensions represented by Codtx Valicanus and Codex Sinaiticus.


the other name, Cleopas, was then inserted from verse i8, and

in time placed even before Emmaus by a later copyist And

accordingly we find, even in Ambrose of Milan, that the two

travellers are regularly called Ammaon et Cleopas. It was

just as Jerome said : a vitiosis interpretibus male edita, a

praesumptoribus imperitis emendata perversius, a librariis

dormitantibus aut addita aut mutata.

(2.) The Latin Version of Jerome.

It is a comparatively easy task to restore the work of

Jerome; first of all because all our present manuscripts are

derived from one and only one source, secondly because the

number of existing manuscripts is very great, and lastly

because some of them at least go back to the sixth century.

Codex There is a Codex in Paris which formerly belonged to the

Epteinacensis.church of St willibrord at Echternach, written, by an

Irish hand of the eighth or ninth century, and containing

a subscription copied from its original to the following effect

:

proemendavi ut potui secundum codicem in bibliotheca

Eugipi praespiteri quern ferunt fuisse sci Hieronymi, in-

dictione VI. p(ost) con(sulatum) Bassilii u. c. anno septimo

Cod« decimo. That must have been in the year 558. CodexAmUtinus. Amiatinus, now in Florence, was formerly supposed to belong

to the same time, but this turns out to be a mistake, because

it has been proved that it was written for Ceolfrid, Abbot of

Wearmouth, who died at Langres on the 25th September 716,

on his way to Rome, where he intended to present this

Codex to the Pope. One of the oldest and most valuable

manuscripts of the Vulgate is at Fulda, where it has been

Codex preserved, perhaps, from the time of Boniface. This CodexFuldensis. Fuldensis was written between 540 and 546, by order of

Bishop Victor of Capua, and corrected by himself. It con-

tains the whole of the New Testament according to Jerome's

version, only in place of the four separate Gospels it has a

Harmony composed by Victor, who followed Tatian's plan,


and White.

using the Latin text of Jerome. Victor's Harmony in turn

became the basis of the so-called Old German Tatian.

The task of restoring the original text of Jerome's version Wordsworth

has been undertaken in England by the Bishop of Salisbury,

who has been at work on all the available material for more

than fifteen years. The edition bears the title, Novum Testa-

mentutn Domini nostri Jesu Christi secundum editionem sancti

Hieronymi ad codicum manuscriptorumfidem recensuitJohannes

Wordsworth in operis societatem adsumpto Henrico Juliano

White. Five parts of the first volume have already ap-

peared, containing the four Gospels with an Epilogus adEvangelia} In France, J. Delisle, the Director of the Paris

National Library, has rendered great service by his workupon the manuscripts under his care ; while Samuel Berger

has constituted himself pre-eminently the historian of the

Vulgate by bringing fresh testimony from the early Middle

Ages and the remotest provinces of the Church to bear uponthe history of the Vulgate and its text as well as on the

origin and dissemination of the different forms. In his com-pendious Histoire de la Vulgatependant Us premiers slides dumoyen age (Paris, 1893), he has, e.gn indicated no fewer than212 different ways in which the books of the Old Testamentwere arranged in the manuscripts that he examined, andthirty-eight varieties in the order of the New Testament books.

In Germany Bengel applied himself to the reconstruction ofthe Latin text of the Bible in the last century, and in this hewas followed by Lachmann in the present century, whileRiegler, van Ess, and Kaulen have added to our knowledgeof the history of the Vulgate. Dr. Peter Corssen hasfollowed up the labours of Ziegler and Ronsch in the par-ticular field of the pre-Jeromic Bible and its text with amethodical examination of the earlier editions, and E. v.

Dobschiitz has begun to publish Studies in the TextualCriticism of the Vulgate. The valuable researches of CarloVercellone (1860-64) were concerned almost exclusively with

1«889. 9«. 93i 9S. 98 ; cited in the sequel as W.-W.


Jerome.

the Old Testament, and do not seem to have been fol-

lowed up in Italy. " Utinam Papa Leo XIII.," says Gregory,

"tanta scientia tanta magnanimitate insignis curam in se

suscipiat textus sacrosanctorum Bibliorum Latini edendi

;

cura, opus ecclesia et Papa dignum." Meanwhile Words-

worth and White appear to have accomplished as much as

is possible at present in the field of the Gospels.1

MSS. used by The principles on which Jerome went in his revision of

the text have been already referred to, but what the early

Greek manuscripts were that he employed is not yet clearly

made out. The relics of the material he used are as scanty

as those of his own work. He must, however, have been

able to make use of manuscripts that went back to Eusebius,

seeing that he adopted the Eusebian Canons in his New

Testament. But there are certain readings in Jerome which

we have not yet been able to discover in any Greek manu-

script that we know. For instance, he gives docebit vos omnem

veritatem in John xvi. 13, where our present Greek editions

read oSnyrjcret ifias iv t/J aXnOela irdcrfl, so that he would seem

to have read Siriyqa-erai i/xiv t^c a\q6etav ircurav. As a

matter of fact, this reading does occur in two passages of

Eusebius and in Cyril of Jerusalem, as well as in the Arabic

version of Tatian, but it has not been discovered in any

Greek manuscript.2 In the other parts of the New Testa-

ment, the revision of which was perhaps completed by the

year 386, Jerome inserted hardly any new readings from

the Greek, but contented himself with improving the grammar

and diction of the Latin. His work on the Old Testament

was much more comprehensive, but does not fall to be

discussed here.

It was only by degrees that Jerome's recension gained

1 On the Epilogus to the first volume of their Oxford edition, see especially

S. Bergerinthe Revue Critique, 1889, pp. 141-144 ;and on the whole, Burkitt,

The Vulgate Gospels and the Codex Brixianus, in the Journal of Theological

Studies, I. i. (Oct. 1899) pp. l2Q-«34.

» Compare E. Maugenot, Les manuscrits greet des /vangiles employe'spar Saint

Jerdme, in the Revue des sciences ecclisiastiques, January 1900.

History of

the Vulgate.


ground. In Rome, Gregory the Great (d. 604) for onepreferred it to the old, though at the same time he says

expressly: sedes apostolica, cui auctore Deo praesideo,

utraque utitur. Owing to the use of both forms the diver-

sity of copies grew to such an extent that in jgj Charlesthe Great ordered Alculn to make a uniformly revised textAlcuin.

from the best Latin manuscripts for use in the Churches ofhis Empire. For this purpose Alcuin sent to his native

Northumbria for manuscripts, by which he corrected thetext of the Bible, and he was able to present the first copyto the Emperor at Christmas 801. A good many of thesuperb Carolingian manuscripts, as they are called, whichare found in our libraries, contain Alcuin's Revision, as for

instance the Bible of Grandval near Basel, which was prob-ably written for Charles the Bald, and which is now in theBritish Museum (see Plate VII.); the Bible presented to thesame monarch by Vivian, Abbot of St Martin of Tours,which was sent by the Chapter of Metz from the Cathe-dral treasury there to Colbert in 1675, and is now in Paris(B. N., Lat 1); another written in the same monastery of StMartin, and now at Bamberg; and that in the VallicellianLibrary of the Church of Sta. Maria in Rome, which is

perhaps the best specimen of the Alcuinian Bible.

Another revision was introduced into France by Alcuin'scontemporary Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans (787-821). He Theodult

was a Visigoth, born in the neighbourhood of Narbonne, andthe type of text he introduced was taken essentially fromSpanish manuscripts. We have his revision in the so-calledTheodulfian Bible, which formerly belonged to the CathedralChurch of Orleans, and is now in Paris (Lat. 9380) ; in its

companion volume, formerly in the Cathedral of Puy, andnow in the British Museum (24142) ; and in the Bible ofSt Hubert, which came from the monastery of that name inthe Ardennes.

A further revision was made by Stephen Harding, third Harding.Abbot of Citeaux. About the year 1109 he prepared a


standard Bible for his congregation, in which the Latin text

of the New Testament was corrected by the Greek. At the

same time the Old Testament was revised from the Hebrew

with the help of some Jewish scholars. Harding s copy of

the standard Bible, in four volumes, is still preserved in the

Public Library at Dijon. A similar work was done for his

monastery by William, Abbot of Hirsau.

Correctoria. Attempts were also made to settle the text by means of

the so-called Correctoria Bibliorum, in which those readings

which were supposed to be correct were carefully collected

and arranged. The University of Paris in particular did a

great deal in this way, and such was its influence, that by

the middle of the fifteenth century the Parisian text was the

one most commonly followed in manuscripts, and the inven-

tion of printing gave it a complete ascendancy over the

others. ,

,,intedtext. The first fruits of the printing press are understood

to be the undated " forty-two line Bible," usually called the

Mazarin Bible, seeing that it was the copy in the library of

Cardinal Mazarin that first attracted the attention of biblio-

graphers. The first dated Bible is of the year 1462.

Copinger estimates that 124 editions were printed before

the close of the fifteenth century, and over 400 during

the sixteenth. The first edition in octavo, " for the poor

man/' was issued at Basel in 1491 from the Press of Froben,

the same printer who prompted Erasmus to prepare the first

Greek New Testament. The first edition in Latin with

various readings was printed in 1504. In the following year

Erasmus published the Annotations which Laurentius Valla

had prepared for the Latin Bible as early as 1444- The

year 1 528 saw the first really critical edition. It was brought

out by Stephen, who used in its preparation three good

Paris manuscripts—the Bible of Charles the Bald already

referred to, that of St. Denis, and another of the ninth

century, the New Testament portion of which has now dis-

appeared. He afterwards published in 1538-40 another


edition, for which he employed seventeen manuscripts, andwhich became the foundation of the present authorised

Vulgate. About the same time John Henten published a Henten.

very valuable edition [1547] on the basis of thirty-one

manuscripts, in the preparation of which he was assisted

by the theologians of Louvain. This was followed in 1573and 1580 by two further editions containing importantannotations by Lucas of Brugge. In the year previous to Authorised

that in which Henten's edition appeared, the Council fVulg"te'

Trent, in its fourth sitting of the 8th April 1546, decided"ut haec vetus et vulgata editio in publicis lectionibus, dis-

putationibus, praedicationibus et expositionibus pro authentica

habeatur," and at the same time ordained "posthac sacrascriptura, potissimum vero haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio

quam emendatissime imprimatur."

The latter part of this decree was carried into effect in Sixtine.

the papacy of Sixtus V. His predecessor, Pius V., began thework of revising the text of the Bible, and a " Congre-gatio pro emendatione Bibliorum " gave twenty-six sittings

to it in the year 1569. His successor seems to have allowedthe work to lapse, but Sixtus V. appointed a new com-mission for the purpose under the Presidency of CardinalCaraffa. The Pope himself revised the result of their

labours, which was printed at the Vatican Press that he hadfounded. This edition, which takes its name from him,was issued under the Bull " Aeternus ille" of the 1st March1589, and published in the following year. It is the first

official edition of the Vulgate. Sixtus died on the 27thAugust 1590, and was succeeded by four Popes in the spaceof two years. His fourth successor in the Chair of Peter,Clement VIII., issued a new edition under the name of Clementine,

the old Pope, accompanied by the Bull "Cum sacrorum"of the 9th November 1592. This edition, containing apreface written by Cardinal Bellarmin, was substituted for

the former, and has continued from that day without anyalteration as the authorised Bible of the entire Roman


Church. The text of this second edition approximated

more closely to that of Henten, for which the Commission

of Pope Sixtus had also expressed their preference, though

their printed edition went rather by that of Stephen. The

number of the variations between these two editions has been

estimated at 3000. For our purpose both alike are super-

seded by the edition of Wordsworth and White. It may

be added that the first edition to contain the names of both

the Popes upon the title page is that of 1604. The

title runs : " Sixti V. Pont. Max. iussu recognita et dementis

VIII. auctoritate edita." Those printed at Rome at the

present day are entitled: "Sixti V. et dementis VIII. Pontt.

Maxx. iussu recognita atque edita." See below, p. 132.

An enumeration of all the manuscripts of the Vulgate

mentioned by Tischendorf in his eighth edition, or even

of the earliest and most important of them, cannot be

attempted. Those, however, mentioned by Gebhardt in his

Adnotatio Critica are given here, with the notation adopted

by Wordsworth and White.

The best manuscripts, in the judgment of the English

editors, are Codex Amiatinus, Codex Fuldensis, and the

one in the Ambrosian Library at Milan (C 39 inf.),

written in the sixth century. (M in W.-W. ;not cited

by Tischendorf.)

am. Amiatinus (vide supra, p. 122), written ca. 700, is

an excellent manuscript, and particularly interesting as

containing in the introduction a double catalogue of the

Books of the Bible resembling that of the Senator

Cassiodorus. See Westcott, Bible in the Church, Appendix B;

Canon, Appendix D. (A in W.-W.) (See Plate VI.)

bodl. Bodleianus, of the seventh century, formerly belong-

ing to the Library of St. Augustine at Canterbury. (O in

W.-W.)demid. Demidovianus, belonging to the thirteenth century,

but copied from an earlier exemplar; formerly at Lyons;

present locality unknown ; not cited in W.-W.

chap, ii.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 129

em. Emeram, written in the year 870, in gold uncials with

splendid miniatures : at Munich, Cimelie 55 : not cited

in W.-W.erl. Erlangen, of the ninth century (Irmischer's Catalogue,

467): used only indirectly by Tischendorf, and not cited

in W.-W.for. Foroiuliensis, written in the sixth or seventh century,

and now at Cividale, Friuli : fragments of it at Venice andPrague. (J in W.-W.)

fos. Of the ninth century : from St. Maur des Fossds,

now in Paris. (Lat. 11959.)

fu. Fuldensis (vide supra, p. 122), written between 540and 546: contains the Epistle to the Laodicaeans after

Colossians: edited with facsimiles by E. Ranke. (F in

W.-W.)

gat. Gatianus, from St. Gatien's in Tours : written in the

eighth or ninth century: stolen from Libri : purchased byLord Ashburnham and now in Paris : not cited in W.-W.

harl. Harleianus 1775, °f the sixth or seventh century :

in the British Museum, formerly in Paris 4582 : stolen fromthere by John Aymqnt in 1707. (Z in W.-W.)

ing. Ingolstadt, of the seventh century, now in the Uni-versity Library at Munich : defective. (I in W.-W.) See vonDobschutz, Vulgatastudien (with two facsimiles).

mm. Of the tenth or eleventh century, from Marmoutiers,near Tours: in the British Museum, Egerton 609. (E in

W.-W.)mt Of the eighth or ninth century, from St Martin's, and

still at Tours : written in gold letters. (ffl in W.-W.)pe. A very old purple manuscript of the sixth century at

Perugia, containing Luke i. i-xii. 7. (P in W.-W.)prag. The fragments cited under for. (see above).

reg- Regius, of the seventh or eighth century, a purplemanuscript inscribed in gold, containing Matthew and Mark,with lacunae: at Paris 11955 : not cited in W.-W.

rus. The so-called Rushworth Gospels, written by an Irish

I

scribe who died in the year 820: has an interlinear Anglo-

Saxon version. (R in W.-W.)san. At St. Gall, a fragment containing Matthew vi. 21-

John xvii. 18, written by a scribe who says that he used two

Latin and one Greek manuscripts. In the Epistles san. is a

palimpsest at St. Gall containing Ephes. vi. 2 to 1 Tim. ii. 5,

the Biblical text being the uppermost.

taur. Of the seventh century, at Turin, contains the Gospels

beginning at Matthew xiii. 34 : not cited in W.-W.tol. Written in the eighth century : this manuscript, which

was written by a Visigoth, was given by Servandus of Seville

to John, Bishop of Cordova, who presented it to the See of

Seville in 988 : it was afterwards at Toledo, and is now at

Madrid. It was collated for the Sixtine Recension byPalomares, but reached Rome too late to be of use. (T in

W.-W.)

In addition to the eleven manuscripts mentioned above as

cited by Wordsworth and White, twenty-one others are regu-

larly used by them, and a great number are cited occasionally.

For these reference must be made to their edition, and for

further particulars to Berger's incomparable work.

On the Latin Versions compare TiGr., 948-1108, 1313, andespecially Scrivener. The chapter on The Latin Versions in the

Fourth Edition of the latter work (c. iii.) was re-written by H. J.

White, the collaborateur of Wordsworth. See also Urt., 85-118,

which deals with the Old Testament as well, and the article on the

Old Latin Versions in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, iii. 47-62.

1. G. Riegler, Kritische Geschichte der Vulgata, Sulzbach, 1820;Lean, van Ess, Pragmatisch-kritische Geschichte der Vulgata im Allge-

meinen und zunachst in Beziehung auf das Trientische Decret,

Tiibingen, 1824 ; Kaulen, Geschichte der Vulgata, Mainz, 1868

;

Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers sihles du moyenage, Paris, 1893 (List of the chief works dealing with the history of

the Vulgate given on p. xxii. ff.).

2. On the subject of the Itala see Ziegler, Die Lateinischen Bibel-

ubersetzungcn vor Hieronymus und die Itala des Augustinus, Munich,

1879; Zycha, Bemerkungen zur Itala/rage, in the Eranos Vindo-


bonensis, ,893, 177-184; Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala(texts and Studies, vol. iv., No. 3, 1896).

3. On the language see Rdnsch (d. 1888), Itala und Vulgata, andEdition 1875; also 2% dltesten lateinischen-Bibeliibersetzungen nachthrem Werthe fiir die lateinische S/rachwissenscha/t, by the sameSW Cffanea ****** Bremen, ,891, 1-20; Kaulen,Handbuch zur Vulgata, Eine systematise/^ Darstellung ihres Sprach-charakters, Mainz, 1870. Saalfeld, De Bibliorum S. Vulgata Edi-twms Graecttate, Quedlinburg, 1891.

4- Editions of the Text:-Among the earlier works the mostimportant is that of Sabatier, which is not yet superseded, in theOld Testament at least, Bibliorum sacrorum Latince Versiones antique,sen Vetus Itahca, etcetera: quacunque in codicibus MSS. et antiquorumhbns reperxn potuerunt, etc., opera et studio D. Petri Sabatier, 3 volsfoho,> Rhe.ms, 1743. Jos . Bianchini (Blanchinus), EvangeliariumQuadruples, 2 vols, folio, Rome, , 749 (copies now cost about £4)After a long interval work in this field has been resumed in the OldLatin Biblical Texts, published at the Clarendon Press, Oxford, ofwhich four parts have appeared :_x. The Gospel according to St.Matthewfrom th, St. Germain MS.

(gl ), now numbered Lat. lI553in the National Library at Paris, with Introduction and five Aplen-^ydited byJohn Wordsworth, D.D., 1883 (6/-). 2. Portions ofgospels according to St. Mark and St. Matthew from the BobbioMS.Jk), naiv numbered G. VII. ,5 i„ the NationalLibrary at Turintogether with other fragments of the Gospels from six MSS. in theLibraries of St Gall, Coire, Milan, and Berne (usually cited asn, op as, and t). Edited, with the aids of Tischendorfs Tran-scripts and the printed Texts ofRanke, Ceriani, and Hagen, with twofacsimiles, byJ. Wordsworth, D.D. W.Sandav DD°M V^Ts MA

'l886 (2lA)

- 3- The Four Gospels.Jrom theMunich MS(q ),now numbered Lat. 6224 in the Royal Library atMunich with a Fragment from St. John in the HofBibliolhTkat

sZTi(

S*,w- S°"> EditCd>Witk* aid "f TiscindorfsTratscript (under the direction of the Bishop of Salisbury), by H.J. White,

1 The New Testament is contained in vol ii; xi, i

.743 on the .h.e-pages of three vo.utsZ ih "a islt e°

at thTeL""* **

wh.ch says, •• E preIo exiit hic tomus^ ««™ at * <"d;P- ">S,

P. .350, .s a misprint. The imprimaturs of thefirst votrTar darf' "

Th"work was reprinted with new title-pages at Paris bv Fr nl ? , J37-' "

cost from £15 to ^25.y dot> ' 7S '- CoPies "°w


Dialects.

Bohairic.

M.A 1888 (12/6). 4. Portions of the Acts of the Apostles, of the

Epistle of St. James, and of the First Epistle of St. Peter from the

Bobbio Palimpsest (s), now numbered Cod. 16 in the Imperial Library

at Vienna. Edited, with the aid of Tischendorfs and Belsheim's

printed Texts, by H.J. White, M.A., with a Facsimile, 1897 (5/-).

(See notice in the Expository Times, April 1898, p. 320 ff.)

5. Wordsworth and White's edition of the Vulgate is noticed by

Berger in the Bull. Crit, 1899, viii. 141-144. Itmay be added here,

as that critic observes, that insufficient regard is paid to the later

history of the Latin text in this edition. At least one representative

of a recension so important as that of the University of Paris in the

thirteenth century might have been collated, and perhaps also the

first printed edition, " the forty-two line " Bible.

On the authorised edition of 1590 and 1592, see Eb. Nestle, Etn

Jubildum der lateinischen Bibel. Zum 9 November 1892, in Mar-

ginalien und Materialien, 1893 ; also printed separately.

An exact reprint of the Latin Vulgate has recently been published

by M. Hetzenauer from his Greek-Latin New Testament (see above,

p. 25), entitled Novum Testamentum Vulgatae Editionis. Ex Vati-

canisEditionibus earumque Correctorio critice edidit MichaelHetzenauer.

Oeniponte, 1899. As an introduction to this edition reference may

be made to the same writer's Wesen und Principien der Bibtlkritik

auf katholischer Grundlage. Unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der

offiziellen Vulgataausgabe dargelegt. Innsbruck, 1900.

(c.) EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

Next in importance to the Syriac versions from the East

and the Latin from the West are the Egyptian versions from

the South. Here too we find not one early version but several.

What used till lately to be called Coptic 1is merely one of

the dialects into which the language of ancient Egypt was

divided. And here we must distinguish three main branches—

the Bohairic, the Sahidic, and the Middle Egyptian.

(1) Bohairic 2is the name given to the dialect that was

spoken in the Bohaira—i.e. the district by the sea and there-

fore Lower Egypt, the neighbourhood of Alexandria. It was

1 The word Coptic is not derived from the town in Upper Egypt called

Coptos, but is a modification of the Greek word AlyiiirTioi.

' The spelling Bahiric is due to a wrong vocalisation of the word.


the principal dialect, and being that used for ecclesiastical

purposes over the whole country, and, moreover, that with

which European scholars first became acquainted, the versions

written in it were described as the Coptic simply. The termMemphitic, which was preferred for a time, is incorrect,

because it was not till the eleventh century that the Patri-

archate was transferred to Cairo

—

i.e. the district of Memphis,and in early times a different dialect was spoken there.

(2) Sahidic is the name used to describe the dialect of Sahidic.

Upper Egypt It is sometimes and not improperly spokenof as the Thebaic in distinction to the Memphitic.

(3) Under the Middle Egyptian l we have to distinguish— Middle

(a) The Fayumic, spoken in the Fayum

—

i.e. the district to theByptiao'

S.W. of the Delta, watered by the Joseph Canal, and separatedfrom the valley of the Nile by a narrow strip of the desert It

was in this district that those recent papyrus discoveries weremade which have enriched the libraries and museums of Europe.

(6) The Middle Egyptian proper, or Lower Sahidic, a dialectwhich has its home on the site of ancient Memphis.

(c) The dialect of Achinim, which preserves a more primitiveform of early Egyptian than any of those already referred to.

In the eleventh century the Coptic Bishop Athanasiusspecifies three dialects of the Coptic language—the Bohairic,the Sahidic, and a third which he says was already extinct,and to which he give's the name of Bashmuric ; but whetherthis last is to be identified with the dialects included aboveunder the name of Middle Egyptian, is not quite certain.

(1.) The Bohairic Version.

This version, formerly designated as the Coptic, was first Bohairic.used for the New Testament by Bishop Fell of Oxford, whowas indebted for his knowledge of it to Marshall. It wasafterwards employed by Mill for his edition of 1707. It wasfirst published in 17 16 by Wilkins (or rather Wilke), a

' On the Middle Egyptian, see W. E. Crum in the Journal of ThuhrtcalStudies, I. 3 (April 1900), pp. 416 ff.

J n""°sica'

134 CREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II.

Sahidic,

Prussian who had settled in England, with the title, "Novum

Testamentum Aegyptium vulgo Copticum." His edition was

accompanied with a Latin translation. In 1734 Bengel

obtained a few particulars regarding this version from La

Croze, the Berlin Librarian. An edition of the Gospels by

Moritz Schwartze appeared in 1846-47, and after his death

the Acts and Epistles were published (1852) by Paul Boet-

ticher, afterwards distinguished under his adopted name of

de Lagarde. About the same time Tattam prepared a wholly

uncritical edition of the entire New Testament, including the

Apocalypse which did not originally form part of this version. 1

Steindorff is of opinion that the Bohairic version originated

in the Natron Valley during the fourth or fifth century, but

others affirm that it is older, or at all events rests on an older

foundation. The order of the New Testament books was origin-

ally: (1) the Gospels, in which John stood first, followed by

Matthew, Mark, Luke, (2) the Pauline Epistles, with Hebrews

between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim., (3) the seven Catholic Epistles, and

(4) the Acts. More than fifty Bohairic manuscripts are pre-

served in the libraries of Europe, and from these an edition has

been prepared for the Clarendon Press in two volumes, with

exhaustive Introduction by G. Horner (1898).

The Greek text on which this version is based is regarded

by present critics as particularly pure, and free from so-called

Western additions.

(2.) The Sahidic Version.

It was a long time before this version attracted any atten-

tion. In his New Testament, Wilkins mentioned two manu-

scripts, " lingua plane a reliquis MSS. Copticis diversa," and

Woide in 1778 announced his intention of editing certain

fragments of the New Testament " iuxta interpretationem

superioris Aegypti quae Thebaidica vocatur," which were

afterwards published by Ford in 1799- At the close of last

century and the beginning of this, various other fragments

' Westcott, Canon, Fart II., chapter ii., § I aibfinem.


were issued by Tuki, Mingarelli, Miinter, Zoega, and Engel-

breth, but it was not till more recent times that really import-

ant parts of the Old and New Testaments were published

by Amelineau, Ciasca (in two vols.), Bouriant, Maspero,

Ceugney, and Krall. In 1895 Goussen gave us a large part of

the Apocalypse. 1 This version, like the former, contained the

entire New Testament, with the exception of the Apocalypse,

and originally exhibited the Gospels in the same order—John,

Matthew, Mark, Luke. Hebrews, however, stood between

2 Corinthians and Galatians. Its Greek original was quite

different from that of the Bohairic version. (See Plate VIII.)

(3.) The Middle Egyptian Versions.

Of these only fragments are as yet known to exist. Portions Middle

of Matthew and John, and of 1 Cor., Ephes., Phil., Thess., andEeyPtian -

Hebrews in the Fayumic, or, as it used to be called, the Bash-

muric dialect, were first published by Zoega in 1809, by Engel-

brethin 181 1,and especially by Bouriant( 1889) and Crum( 1893).

Fragments in the Lower Sahidic have been published in the "

Mitteilungcn aus der Sammlniig der Papyrus des Erzherzogs

Raincr.

In the Achmim dialect, James iv. 12, 13 and Jude 17-20are the only fragments that have been discovered as yet, andthese have been published by Crum. Whether these frag-

ments are really parts of a separate version, or merely dialec-

tical modifications of the Sahidic, is not quite certain. 2

As to the date of these versions we have no definite informa-tion. It has been understood from certain passages in theLife of St. Anthony, who was born about the year 250, thatin his boyhood he heard the Gospel read in Church in thelanguage of Egypt, but that need not imply the existence ofa written version, as the translation may have been made by a

1 H. Hyvemat, Unfragment in/dit de /aversion sahidique du Nouvcau Testament(Ephes. i. 6-ii. Si). Revue Biblique, April 1900, pp. 248-253. The fragmentis of the eighth or ninth century.

3 See also the Greek and Middle Egyptian manuscript published by Crum andKcnyon, referred to above, p. 70.

>36 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 137

reader who interpreted as he read. In the third century,

however, versions may have arisen, and it was certainly in the

South that the first attempts at translation were made. Our

oldest known manuscripts, a Sahidic containing 2 Thess. iii.,

and one in Middle Egyptian of Jude 17-20, date from the

fourth or fifth century. The Sahidic version seems to have

been made first, then the Middle Egyptian, and finally the

Bohairic. To what extent the one influenced the other is a

question requiring further investigation.

A correct edition and a critical application of these Egyptian

versions is, next to a fresh examination of the minuscules,

the task of most importance at present for the textual criticism

of the New Testament. For the Sahidic version in particular

represents a type of text found hitherto almost exclusively in

the West, and looked upon as the outcome of Western corrup-

tion and licence, whereas it may really bear the most re-

semblance to the original form. In the Acts especially its

agreement with the text of Codex D is remarkable. Onemight instance, e.g., the mention of Pentecost in Acts i. 5, the

insertion of the Golden Rule in its negative form in xv. 20, 29,

the relation of the vision in xvi. 10, and the description of the

stone which twenty men could not roll away in Luke xxiii. 53,

all of which are now found in a Greek-Sahidic manuscript.

The Sahidic version, like the Bohairic, is well represented in

European libraries, and the manuscripts are dated as a rule

in the Egyptian fashion according to the years of the Martyrs

—

i.e. according to an era reckoned from August or September

284 A.D.

TiGr., 859-893. Scrivener4, ii. 91-144, revised by Horner, with

additions by Headlam. H. Hyvemat, Etude sur les Versions Copies

de la Bible (Revue Biblique, v. (1896) 427-433, 540-569; vi. 1 (1897)

48-74. Urt., 144-147. Forbes Robinson, Egyptian Versions, in

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i. (1898) 668-673. w - E -

Crum, Coptic Studies from the Egypt Exploration Fund's Report for

1897-1898, 15 pp. 4to. For the Gospels, Horner's edition eclipses all

others. It is entitled, The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the

Northern dialect, otherwise called Memphitic or Bohairic, with Intro-

duction, Critical Apparatus, and literal English Translation. Vol. I.

Introduction, Matthew and Mark, cxlviii. 484. Oxford, Clarendon

Press, 1898; Vol. II. Luke and John, 548 pp., 1898. See notice

by Hyvemat in the Revue Biblique, 1899, pp. 148-iS .and also w - E -

Crum, lib. cit., where reference is also made to the Manuscrits Copies

au Muse'e . . . . a Leide, 1897. As Horner's edition as yet only

covers the Gospels, the remaining portions of the New Testament

must still be sought in the two parts published by Lagarde after

Schwartze's death, Acta Apostolorum coptice (1852), and Epistulac

Novi Testamenti coptice (1852). On Brugsch's Recension in the

Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, vii. (1853) pp.

ii5-i2i,see ibid., p. 456, and Lagarde, Aus dem deutschen Gclehrten-

leben, pp. 25-65, 73-77. Tattam's Bohairic-Arabic edition was pub-

lished by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

The first fragments of the New Testament in Sahidic appeared in

Tuki's Rudimenta in 1778, and Woide's editio princeps, announced

in the same year, was brought out after his death by Ford in 1799.

Amelineau's Fragments Thibaines in'edits du Nouveau Testament

were published in vols, xxiv.-xxvi. of the Zeitschrift fur dgyptische

Sprache (1 886-1 888). Considerable portions of the Apocalypse

were issued in facsimile by Goussen in the first Fasciculus of his

Studia Theologica (Lipsiae, 1897). Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical

writings have also been discovered in recent times, as, for example,

the Acta Pauli in a manuscript of the seventh century, written in

Sahidic consonants with Middle Egyptian vocalisation. These

are to be published by A. Schmidt. See Addenda, p. xv.

See also Amelineau, Notice des manuscrits copies de la Bibliothique

Nationale renfermant des textes bilingues du Nouveau Testament, in

the Athenaum, No. 3601, p. 599.

The foregoing versions are those of most importance in the

criticism of the text. There are, however, one or two others

which, though inferior in value, are still interesting. Amongthese is—

(d.) THE GOTHIC VERSION.

This is the work of Ulfllas

—

i.e. Wolflin—a Cappadocian by Gothic,

descent, who in the year 340 succeeded Theophilus, the first


Bishop of the Goths. 1 While the tribe was still settled in the

Crimea, he is said to have invented an alphabet, and translated

both the Old and the New Testament for their use. In the Old

Testament Ulfilas followed the Septuagint according to the

Recension of Lucian of Antioch (d. 312), which circulated in

the diocese of Constantinople. In the New Testament the

text is likewise essentially that of Chrysostom. The traces of

Latin influence which were supposed to be discernible in the

version, and which may either have existed from the first or

been introduced at a later time, relate at most, perhaps, to

matters of orthography.

(1) The Gothic version first became known through the

so-called Codex Argenteus which Ant. Morillon, Granvella's

secretary, and Mercator the geographer saw in the Monastery

of Werden in the sixteenth century. It was afterwards seen

at Prague by Richard Strein (d. 1601). In 1648 it was

brought to Sweden as a prize of war, and presented to Queen

Christina, or her librarian, Isaac Voss. It was purchased by

Marshall de la Gardie in 1662, bound in silver, and deposited

in the library at Upsala, where it has since remained. Tenleaves were stolen from the manuscript between 182 1 and

1834, but restored, after many years, by the thief upon his

deathbed. This magnificent Codex was written in the fifth

or sixth century on purple with gold and silver lettering. It

now comprises 187 leaves out of 330, and contains fragments

of the four Gospels in the order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark.

It was published for the first time in 1665, from a transcript

made by Derrer ten years before.

(2) Codex Carolinus, the Wolfenbiittel palimpsest already

referred to as Q of the Gospels (see p. 69 above) and the

Old Latin gue of Paul (see p. 1 18), contains some forty verses

of the Epistle to the Romans. It was first published in 1762.

1 The dates of Ulfilas' birth and death are uncertain. He certainly lived till

autumn 381 or 383. The date of his life is variously given as 310-380 or 318-388.

According to Kauffmann, the Synod at which Ulfilas was consecrated Bishop wasthat of Antioch, De Emaeniis, 341.


(3) Fragments of seven palimpsests in the Ambrosian

Library at Milan, discovered by Cardinal Mai in 1817. Like

Codex Carolinus, they are in all probability from the

Monastery of Bobbio. They exhibit part of the Pauline

Epistles and fragments of the Gospels. A few quotations

from Hebrews are also found in a theological work. Noportion of Acts, (Hebrews), Catholic Epistles, or Apocalypse

has as yet been discovered. Editions of the Gothic version

have been published by Gabelentz and Lobe (1836-1843),

Stamm (1858), Heyne "(1872) (i8a6), Bernhardt (Halle, 1875,

1884), and Balg (Milwaukee, 1891). St. Mark was edited byMiiller and Hoppe in 1881, and by Skeat in 1882.

Literature.—On Ulfilas, see Scott, Ulfilas, the Apostle of the

Goths, Cambr., 1885. Bradley, The Goths, in the "Story of the

Nations " Series, 1 888. Gwatkin, Studies ofArianism, 1 882. Urt., pp.1 19-120, where see literature, to which add Eckstein, Ulfilas und die

gothische Uebersetzung der Bibel, in Westermann's Illustr. MonatShefte,

Dec. 1892, 403-407 ; Jostes, Das Todesjahr des Ulfilas und der Ueber-

tritt der Gothen zum Arianismus (Beitrdge zur Geschichte der deutschen

Sprache, xxii. i. 158 ff.). Jostes gives 383 as the date of Ulfilas's

death. On the other side, see Kauffmann, Der Arianismus des

Wulfila in the ZfdPhil, xxx. (1897) 93-113; Luft, Die arian-

ischen Quellen iiber Wulfila in the ZfdAltert., xlii. 4 ; Vogt, ZuWulfila's Bekenntnis und dem Opus imperfectum, ibid. Kauffmann,Beitrdge zur Quellenkritik der gotischen Bibeliibersetzung in theZfdPhil.; (ii.) das N. T. (xxx., 1897, 145-183); (iii.) das gotische

Matthdusevangelium und die Itala; (iv.) die griechische Vorlage des

gotischen Johannesevangeliums (xxxi., 1898, 177-198): also by thesame author, Aus der Schule des Wulfila. Auxentii Dorostorensisepistula de Fide, Vita, et Obitu Wulfila im Zusammenhang derDissertatio Maximini contra Ambrosium herausgegeben. Strassburg,

1899. P. Batiffol, De quelques homilies de St. Chrysostome et de la ver-

sion gothique des ecritures (Revue Biblique, Oct. 1899, pp. 566-572),see also ThLz., 1900, No. i. ; LCbl., 1900, No. 28. On the relationof the Gothic version to the codex Brixianus (f), see Burkitt in

the Journal of Theological Studies, i. p. 131 ff.,and compare Addenda,p. xv.

On the Gothic language^and writing, see Douse, Introduction to

1 4o GREEK NEW TESTAMENT: [CHAP. II.

the Gothic of Ulfilas. London, 1886 ; the grammars of Braune and

Skeat, and the dictionaries of Schulze, Heyne, and Bernhardt ; see

also Luft, Studien zu den iiltesten germanischen Alfabtten, Giitersloh,

1898, viii. 115, who traces eighteen characters to the Greek alphabet

and nine to the Latin and Ulfilas's own invention. On R. Lowe's

Reste der Germanen am schwarzen Meer (Halle, 1896), see the

story told by Melanchthon according to Pirkheimer (Th. St. und

Kr., 1897, 784 ff.).

To what extent the remaining ancient versions were taken

directly from the Greek or influenced by one or other of those

already described is still subject of dispute.

(e.) THE ETHIOPIC VERSION.

According to the tradition of the Abyssinian Church, the

Ethioplc version of the New Testament was made from the

Greek previous to the fifth century. Dillmann accepts this

as correct, but Gildemeister would assign it to the sixth or

seventh century, and thinks that traces are discernible of

Syrian Monophysitism. Guidi decides for the end of the

fifth or beginning of the sixth century. In addition to the

usual twenty-seven books, the Ethiopic New Testament has an

Appendix consisting of a work on Canon Law in eight books

called the Synodos, so that the Ethiopian Church reckons in

all thirty-five books in the New Testament In later times

the version was undoubtedly corrected from Arabic and Coptic

texts. The first edition appeared in Rome in 1548-1549, but

neither it nor those issued since are of any real critical worth.

At least a hundred Ethiopic manuscripts, mostly of late

origin, exist in the libraries of Europe. What is perhaps the

oldest is preserved in Paris. It dates from the thirteenth

century, and exhibits the Gospels in an unrevised text.

Literature.—See TiGr., 894-912. Scrivener, ii. 154 ff. re-written

by Margoliouth. Urt., 147-150 (F. Praetorius). R. H. Charles,

Ethiopic Version in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, i 791-793.

C. Conti Rossini, Sulla Versione e sulla Revisione delle Sacre Scritturt

in Etiopico, in the Z. fitr Assyriologie, x. 2, 3 (1895). The view of


Lagarde (Ankiindigung, 1882, p. 28; cf. also Gesammelte Abhand-

lungen, lxi. 113), that this version may have been made from the

Arabic or Egyptian in the fourteenth century, is now generally

rejected.

{/.) THE ARMENIAN VERSION.

La Croze, the Berlin Librarian, thought this the " Queen of

the Versions."

Till the fifth century of the Christian era Syrian influence

was supreme in Armenia, and the inhabitants of that region

first received the Scriptures of the Old and New Testamentsin the form of a translation from the Syriac. But in the year

433 two pupils of Mesrob, returning from the Synod of

Ephesus, are said to have brought back with them from Con-stantinople a Greek Bible, and having learned Greek in Alex-andria, to have translated it into Armenian. According to

another account this was done by St. Sahak (390-428) aboutthe year 406. The first edition of the Armenian New Testa-ment was brought out in Amsterdam in the year 1666 l byOsgan of Eriwan, who had been sent to Europe four yearspreviously by the Armenian Synod. It was edited from adefective manuscript, the missing portions of which Osgansupplied from the Vulgate. A better edition was publishedin 1789 by Zohrab, who used twenty manuscripts, and especi-

ally a Cilician Codex of the year 13 10. He was of opinionthat the Armenians did not receive the Apocalypse before theeighth century. Zohrab's text was collated for Tregelles byRieu, whom Tischendorf seems to have drawn upon in hiseditions.

The Armenian manuscripts display variations of severalsorts. In some John's Gospel precedes the Synoptists, in

others it is followed by the Apocryphal " Rest of St. John."The Apocalypse was not read in church prior to the twelfthcentury. In the oldest manuscript of the entire New Testa-ment, at Venice, which dates from the year 1220, the order of

1 Or ins according to the Armenian reckoning.


the other books is Acts, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse, Pauline

Epistles, with the Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul. In

Moscow there is a manuscript of the year 887, in Venice one

dated 902, in Etschmiadzin one written in the year 986 and

bound in ivory covers of the third or fourth century. In the

last-mentioned Codex the words, " of Ariston the Presbyter,"

are found after Mark xvi. 8, as the heading of what follows.

(See Plate IX.) We learn from this, what is evidently correct,

viz., that the present conclusion of Mark's Gospel is due to a

certain Ariston, who may perhaps be identified with Aristion,

the teacher of Papias in the second century. The earlier

Armenian version also contained the two verses Luke xxii.

43, 44, which were omitted in the later.

Literature.— TiGr., 912-922. Scrivener, ii. 148-154. F. C.

Conybeare, Armenian Versions of N. T, in Hastings' Bible Diction-

ary, \, 153 f. See also J. A. Robinson, Euthaliana, c. v. ; The

Armenian Version and its supposed relation to Euthalius, in Texts

and Studies, vol. iii. (1895). On Aristion see Expositor, 1894,

]). 241, and below, p. 295.

(g.) THE GEORGIAN VERSION.

This version, called also the Grusinian or Iberian, is thought

to have been made from the Greek in the sixth century, though

it may also be derived from the Armenian. It contains the

pericope adulters (John vii. 53-viii. 1 1), but places it immedi-

ately after ch. vii. 44, which is the more remarkable, seeing

that in the Old Latin Codex b, the passage from vii. 44onwards has been erased. The Georgian version was first

printed at Moscow in 1743.

Scrivener, ii. 156-158; rewritten by F. C. Conybeare. TiGr.,

922 f.

(ll.) THE ARAUIC VERSIONS.

Some of these were made directly from the Greek, others

from the Syriac and the Coptic, while there are also manu-scripts exhibiting a recension undertaken at Alexandria in

CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. '43

the thirteenth century, The New Testament was even cast

into that form of rhymed prose made classic by the Koran.

As early as the eighth century we find Mohammedan scholars

quoting various passages of the New Testament, particularly

the sayings regarding the Paraclete in John xv. 26, 27, xvi. 13,

which they understood of Mohammed. He himself, however,

knew the Gospel narrative from oral tradition only. Theoldest known manuscript is perhaps one at Sinai, written in

the ninth century, from which Mrs. Gibson edited the text of

Romans, .1 and 2 Cor., Gal., and Ephes. i. i-ii. 9, in the StudiaSinaitica, ii. The four Gospels were published in 1864 byLagarde from a Vienna manuscript, in which a number ofvarious readings were cited from the Coptic, Syriac, and Latin,

this last, e.g., being adduced in support of a reading hitherto

found only in D, one Old Latin (g), and the Lewis-Syriac

:

ovk €tatu Svo tj rpeis (rui»]yfxevoi .... Trap' off ovk et/ii ev fiitrw

avrwv (Matthew xviii. 20). The first edition of the Gospelsappeared at Rome in 1591. In common with the remaining Other

versions of the New Testament, Persic, Old High German, versio1

Anglo-Saxon, Bohemian, and Slavonic, these secondary Arabicversions are not only exceedingly interesting from the pointof view of the history of language and culture, but they arealso valuable here and there for the restoration of the originaltext. In the present work, however, we cannot enter morefully into them.

Literature.— TiGr., 928-947. Scrivener, ii. 161-164. Urt,>5°-'55- *". C. Burkitt, Arabic Versions, in Hastings^ Dictionary^vf the Bible, i. 136-138, where see literature. liurkitt thinks thatthe oldest monument of Arabic Christianity is the manuscriptformerly belonging to the Convent of Mar Saba, now known asCod. Vat. Arab. 13, and numbered 101 in TiGr., which is generallyassigned to the eighth century. It originally contained the Psalter,Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, and is derived from the Syriac. Frag-ments of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and of the Pauline Epistles, areall that now remain. From the same convent come two manuscriptsof the ninth century, containing a version made directly from the


Greek, and perhaps ultimately derived from the Greek-Arabic

manuscript cited as @ h, of which only four leaves have been pre-

served (see above, p. 72). On a Graeco-Arabic MS. connected

with the Ferrar Group (211"), see Lake in the Journal of Theological

Studies, i. 117 ff. Most of the Coptic manuscripts are accompanied

by an Arabic version. The one contained in Cod. Vat. Copt. 9 of the

year 1202 is the best, and forms the basis of our printed editions.

The first revision was undertaken in the year 1250, at Alexandria,

by Hibat Allah ibn el-Assal, and a second towards the end of the

thirteenth century, from which the variants in Lagarde's edition are

derived. An Arabic version of the Acts and all seven Catholic

Epistles, found in a ninth century manuscript at Sinai, and numbered

154 in Mrs. Gibson's Catalogue, is published by her in Studia

Sinaitica, vii. (1899).

For the remaining versions of the N. T, see Scrivener, ii. pp.

158-166 (Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon, Frankish, Persic). These minor

versions will be treated in vol. iv. of Hastings' Bible Dictionary,

under the general heading of Versions. See also Urtext und

Uebersetzungen der Bibel.

3. Quotations.

sSyr third source of material for the restoration of the text

of the New Testament is Quotations found in other books.

These are of great value, because they represent, for the most

part, definite manuscripts existing in certain places at the

time of the writer quoting them, and also because a large

number of them belong to a time from which no codices

have come down to us. The value of their testimony de-

pends, of course, on the conditions already mentioned (p.

32)—viz., that the author quoted accurately, and the copyist

copied faithfully, and the editor edited correctly. Quotations

made by Jewish writers as well as by Christian will fall to be

considered, only it is doubtful if in their case we have more

than one or two uncertain allusions to Matthew v. 17. So,

too, will the quotations made by pagan opponents of Chris-

tianity, particularly those of Celsus in the second century, and

of the Emperor Julian. But here again we are not in posses-

CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. MS

sion of their complete works, which can only be restored by a

similar process and with more or less uncertainty from the

quotations from them found in the writings of the Apologists.1

The books of those Christian Churches which were isolated

from the main church will also be valuable. Even a verse of

Scripture carved upon a stone in an old ruin may have some-thing to tell us.

Brief quotations were usually made from memory. It wasnot so convenient to turn up the passage in an old manuscriptas it is now in our handy printed editions.2 In the case of

longer passages and verbal quotations generally, indolent

copyists were sometimes content with simply adding xai rae£ijs. In the Apostolic Constitutions, ii. 22, for example, wherethe entire prayer of Manasses was meant to be given, thecopyist of a certain manuscript,3 after writing the openingwords from Kvpte down to Stxalov, omitted all the rest,

amounting to thirty-one lines of print, substituting simplykm to (£>js Ttjs evxnf a vfieit ovk ayvouTe. (See further,

Apost. Const., i. 7, Lagarde, p. 8, 23 ; ii. 14, p. 28, 7. 1 1 ; 29, 2).

This, however, is not without its parallel in modern times.

As late as 1872, an Oxford editor, in bringing out Cyril ofAlexandria's Commentary on the Gospel according to St.

John, wrote down only the initial and final words of thequotations in his manuscript, and allowed the compositor toset up the rest from a printed edition of the Textus Receptus.Another editor in Vienna, in preparing an edition of Cyprian'sWorks, preferred those very manuscripts in which the Scrip-tural quotations had been accommodated to the current textof later times. Only when a quotation is given by an author

1 Celsus's polemic against Christianity has perished, but considerable fragmentsare embedded in Origen's Reply. See Antc-Niccne Christian Library, vol xxiii(Clark, Edin.).

J Clement of Alexandria cites Matt, xviii. 3 in four different ways. He quotesMatt. v. 45 six times, and only once accurately.

3 Pelropol. gr. 254, formerly cited as Paris, coisl. 212, written in the year mithe oldest manuscript that Lagarde was able to use for his edition of the ApostolicConstitutions. Further examples of the untrustworthincss of manuscripts andprinted editions will be found in the small print at the end of this section


several times in exactly the same form is it safe to depend on

the actual wording, or when in a Commentary, e.g., the con-

text agrees with the quoted text. Collections of Scriptural

passages like the Testimonia of Cyprian and the so-called

Speculum of Augustine are also taken directly from manu-

scripts of the Bible.

Francis Lucas of Brugge was the first to explore the

writings of the Church Fathers for the express purposes of

textual criticism. They are referred to in four notes found in

the Complutensian Polyglot. In his edition of 1 5 16, Erasmus

cites a whole series of Patristic witnesses— Ambrosius,

Athanasius, Augustine, Cyprian, Gregory of Nazianzen,

Origen, and Theodoret. Since that time all judicious critics

have paid attention to them. Valuable service has been

rendered for Tertullian by Ronsch, and for Origen by

Griesbach. For Augustine, Lagarde is specially to be men-

tioned. Most ot the Fathers were thus cared for by Burgon,

who indexed the New Testament quotations in sixteen large

volumes, which were deposited in the British Museum after

his death. The only pity is that the works of those very

Fathers that are of most importance are not yet satisfactorily

edited. All the more welcome, therefore, is the appearance

of the Vienna Academy's Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum

Latinorum, of which forty volumes have been issued since

1 867, and of the Berlin Academy's edition of the Ante-Nicene

Greek Fathers, of which one volume of Hippolytus and two of

Origen have made their appearance. 1

The earliest Fathers are valuable chiefly for the history of

the Canon. That is to say, their evidence must be taken

simply as showing what New Testament writings they were

acquainted with, and here the argumentum ex silentio is to

be applied with caution. This is the case with Barnabas and

Clement'1 in the first century, and Ignatius and Hennas in the

1 See extended note (2) at the end of the chapter, p. 149.

1 On the question whether Clement of Rome knew the second Epistle of Paul

to the Corinthians, see J. H. Kennedy, The Second and Third E[>islles of St. Paul

to the Corinthians. London, 1900, p. 142 ff.


first half of the second. Even with the much more extensive

writings ofJustin, there is still considerable dispute

—

e.g., as to

what Gospels he made use of.1 Irenaus of Lyons is valuable

on account of his extreme carefulness, and would be particu-

larly so if it could be proved that he brought his New Testa-ment with him from Smyrna 2 and if his writings were extantin Greek, and not, as is the case with most of them, in Latinonly. In Egypt Clement ofAlexandria holds a prominent place,

but by far the most distinguished of all is the great Biblical

scholar of antiquity, Origen (d. 248). Already we find thesewriters appealing to manuscripts, and distinguishing them bysuch epithets as " good," " old," " emended," " most," or " few."In the case of the Ante-Nicene Fathers their locality is animportant consideration, whether Antioch, Cassarea (Eusebius),

Egypt. Constantinople {Chrysostom), or Cappadocia {Theodore),etc. Their expositions of Scripture are preserved in the so-called Catenae, or continuous commentaries, in which theinterpretations of different Fathers are arranged continuouslylike the links of a chain. It not unfrequently happens inthese Catenae that the words of one writer are cited under thename of another. The evidence afforded by the writings ofthe Heretics is no less valuable, if we except those passages,which are not numerous, in which they are understood to havealtered the text of the Scriptures. The works of Marcion havebeen preserved for the most part in Latin by Tertullian. Theyhave recently been collected and restored by Zahn. TheLatin translator of Irenasus also belongs, in all probability,to the time of Tertullian, and not to the fourth century. Thisunknown translator seems to have preserved the Scripturalquotations of Irenaeus with greater fidelity than the laterChurch Fathers who cite them in the Greek. Of Latinwriters contemporary with or subsequent to Tertullian, thoseof most importance for the text of the Old Latin Bible areCyprian, Hilary of Poictiers, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine and

1 Westcott, Canon, Part I., c. ii. 7.1 Ibia., Part II., c. i. I. ; c. ii. 4.

1 48 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAT. II.

his opponent Petals, and for the Apocalypse, Tyconius and

PrimasiM, From the works of Augustine Lagarde collected

no fewer than 29540 quotations from the New Testament

in addition to 13276 from the Old.

Valuable testimony is also afforded by Syrian and Armenian

writers. It is only with their assistance, e.g., that it has been

possible to restore one of our oldest authorities—the Diatessaron

of Tatian—which dates from the second century.

(1) Further examples might be adduced of the unreliable nature

of manuscripts and printed editions.

We find, e.g., in the voluminous commentary of the so-called

Ambrosiast'er, 1 the following note on the quotation in 1 Cor. ii. 9 :—

"Eye hath not seen, etc."—"hoc est scriptum in Apocalypsi Hehae

in apocryphis." In place of the last five words, two manuscripts and

all the printed editions previous to that of St. Maur— i.e. prior to

the year 1690— have "in Esaia propheta aliis verbis."

Compare also what Zahn says in his Einleitung, ii. 314- "A

comparison of the quotations in Matthew with the LXX. is rendered

more difficult by the fact that in manuscripts of the latter written

by Christians, and especially in Cod. Alexandrinus, the text of the

O. T. has been accommodated to the form in which it is cited in

the N. T. C/., also, p. 563 on the quotation from Zechariah

xii. 10, found in John xix. 37. The same writer says (p. 465) :" I"

the Chronicle of Georgios Hamartolos (circa 860), all the manu-

scripts save one assert the peaceful death of John (cV «pto

avtwavcraTo), but this one says the very opposite, paprvpiov «ar^Wai,

and goes on to make certain other additions." On the other hand,

we must not forget in this connection the testimony preserved by

• Ambrosiaster is Ihe name given to the unknown writer of a Commentary on

the Pauline Epistles, which till the time of Erasmus was attributed to Ambrose.

In recent times Dom G. Morin has raise.l the question whether the writer may

not be one Isaac, who is known to have lived in the papacy of Damasus. He

was a Jewish convert to Christianity, and afterwards returned to his former faith.

See Dom ('.. Morin, VAmbrosiaster el Icjttif convert! Isaac, (oiitemforam du fape

Damase, in the Kevue d Histoirc et dc Literature religkusts, iv. 2 (1899), 112.

This writer informs us that a new edition of the whole of Ambros.aslcr will be

brought out by A. Amelli on the basis of a very old manuscript from Monte Cassino.

Morin believes that the text of this manuscript, in spite of its age, is " fortement

retouche, Jont on a elimine la plupart des traits vraiinent interessants'

{ibid.,

p. 121).

CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. I49

Eusebius to the scrupulous care taken by Irenaeus for the propaga-

tion of his writings in the identical form in which he wrote them.

According to that historian, he wrote at the end of one of his worksthe following note :— 'OpKifa <re toi» fi€Taypaij/6p.€vov to fiiP\(ov

tovto Kara toO Kuptov r/fiuiv l-qcrov Xpicrrov koI xard ttjs iv&6£ov irapovcriat

avrov, tjs ipxtrat xpivai fin-as Kal vtKpovi, iva airi/JaAAj/c o fintypaxfiu)

<cai KaTO/jrJwoTjs outo irpos to Avriypaiftov tovto o8tv fxtTiypaipui cirt/xcXuJs,

km toi> opKov toutoi' ofioiuK /Kray/iu^js koX Or/irai iv ra ayTtypdifw. 1

(2) It was Lagarde who most clearly recognised and pointed out the

unsatisfactory way in which the Fathers had previously been edited.

How much care is necessary in the matter of the text is shown bythe discussions connected with the treatment of Scriptural quotationsin the new Vienna edition of Augustine (see Urt., 76, 94 ; Preuschen,in the ThLz. for 1897, 24, col. 630). Even in the new Berlin

edition one cannot absolutely rely on the form of the Scriptural

quotations exhibited in the text, but must always verify it by meansof an independent examination of the apparatus. A few passagesfrom the first volume of Origen recently published will show this,

and prove at the same time how faulty the editions have beenhitherto. This first volume of Koetschau's new edition of Origenopens with the Exhortation to Martyrdom (cis /tapTvpiov Ti-poTpomKot),

a work which is to be assigned to the year 235. The text ofprevious editions is grounded solely on a manuscript at Baselwritten in the sixteenth century (No. 31, A. iii. 9), which is itself acopy, and a not altogether correct copy, of a Parisian manuscriptwritten in the year 1339, not known to the first editors of Origen(P = suppl. grec. 616). Moreover, the Basel manuscript was nottranscribed with sufficient accuracy, or the print was not super-intended with sufficient care by the scholar who prepared the first

printed edition of 1674. With the help of a fresh manuscript(M = Venetus Marc. 45, of the fourteenth century) it is now estab-lished that the writer of P arbitrarily altered the text in a greatnumber of passages, and, above all, abridged it mainly by the excisionof Scriptural quotations. Where Origen, e.g., in citing a passagegives all three Synoptists, P quite calmly drops one of them. ThePanegyric of Gregory Thaumaturgus is treated in the same way, thismanuscript omitting about too out of some 1200 lines of print. And

1 This reminds us of how Luther used to entreat the printers to let his writingsstand as he wrote them.

ISO GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II.

these were the texts to which till the present we were referred for our

Patristic quotations I To take an example :

On tous c>ous Ao'yous, Luke ix. 26, Tischendorf, who in his seventh

edition gave tous «>ous ( = my followers) as the correct reading,

observed that this reading, without Ao'yous, was supported by D a e 1

Or., i. 298. But he added—and this is a proof of the carefulness

with which the quotation from Origen is employed here—sed prae-

cedit ovti tira.io"xyvTtov avrov 7/ tows Aoyous avrou. But if we turn

up this passage in the new edition, we find that it now reads (i. 34,

9 ff.) : out' CTrauTxyvT* " o-vtov r] tous oikuous aurou r] tous Xoyovs

avrov, and then the three parallel passages are quoted in the order

frequently found in Origen—viz., Matthew x. 33 = Luke ix. 26 = Mark

viii. 38. Previous editions entirely omitted this last quotation, as

well as the words in the context, 17 tous oik«ous outou. But now

everything is in order. The words out' cn-aio^un-cof avrov refer to

oo-Tis 8' av anapvrjo-r]rai fit in Matt. x. 33 ; tj tous oikcious ovtou to os

yap av nraio-xyvQTj fit koi tous ifiovs in Luke ix. 26.; and 17 tous Aoyous

avrov to os yap av tiraio-xwOrj fit koi tous e/xous Aoyous, in Mark vill. 38.

So that whereas, on the ground of previous editions, Tischendorf was

obliged to point out a discrepancy between Origen's context and his

peculiar quotation from Luke, the context of the new edition serves

to cQB&in this peculiar quotation, and shows at the same time that

we can accept it on the authority of this very passage, as against

a former passage (p. 296 = 31, 7), where the verse in Luke is found

in the newly-employed manuscript also with the words tous c/xous

Aoyous. That the editor should have put Aoyous in the first passage

within brackets, or at least have pointed out the discrepancy between

it and the quotation further down, would have been too much to

expect, seeing that his manuscripts of Origen gave no manner of

ground for doing so ; it is the duty of those who investigate the

Scriptural quotations in Origen to pay attention to such things. But

there are also passages where the editor has actually gone in the face

of his manuscripts, and wrongly altered the text of his Scriptural

quotations, having evidently allowed himself to be influenced by the

printed text of the N. T., and paying too little respect to the

manuscripts.

An attentive reader will have observed that the reading in Luke

ix. 26, tous c/ious = my followers, which is now established for Origen,

is at present supported by D alone of the Greek manuscripts and by

three Old Latin witnesses. (It is also found in the Curetonian

CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 15'

Syriac, but unfortunately the corresponding words in the Sinai-Syriac

could not be made out with certainty by Mrs. Lewis ; see Some Pages,

p. 72 = p. 168 in the first edition). Now, look at the passage in

Origen's work, i. 25, 26 ff. (p. 293 in De la Rue's edition) : o /icv yap

Martfatos aveypa(f>( Aeyoira roe Kvpiav . . . . o ot Aovxas . . . . o Of

MapKOS' d/3/3a 6 TraTr/p, Swara ow iraVra- irapbrtyM k.t.K. The passage

is printed thus by Koetschau, agreeing exactly with the earlier

printed editions and our texts of the N. T. in Mark xiv. 36. But

in this he is far wrong. Because, as his own apparatus shows us, the

Venetian manuscript, which he rightly follows elsewhere, reads the

words in the order Swara wavra o-ol, which is exactly the order of

the words (Mark xiv. 36) in D, but again in no other Greek manu-

script with the solitary exception of the cursive 473.1 But there are

even passages where Koetschau follows the printed text of the N. T. in

the scriptural quotations in despite of both his manuscripts. In i. 29,

•3 ('• 295 De la Rue), where Matt. x. 17-23 is quoted, he inserts

after wis y ti AaAiJo-i/Tf the clause SoS^orrai yap ifuv iv iKttvy tjj wpa

ri AaAijo-irrt from Matt. x. 19, on the supposition that these words

may have dropped out of the archetype of M P on account of the

homoioteleuton. But they are also omitted in Cod. D of the N. T.

And this, moreover, is not the only point of agreement between this

manuscript and the text given in this quotation. There is, e.g., the

omission of 8c in v. 17, the reading n-apaSaio-oucrtv in v. 19, which

Koetschau has altered to the more grammatical vapaowo-iv, again with-

out sufficient reason and in defiance of both his manuscripts, and the

omission of ifiwv in v. 20, of which there is no mention in Tischendorf

(see the Collation of D in my Supplementum). Origen also agrees

with D, though not verbally, in reading kclv ix touti/s Stunuo-iv cpcuycrc

cts ttjv oAAr/f further down (v. 23), where again Koetschau seems to

me to have unnecessarily inserted tiji>, which is omitted in his prin-

cipal manuscript and also in D. Compare, also, i. 22, 12, whereOrigen agrees with D in reading <ptpu>o-iv (Luke xii. n) instead of

1 Called iv" by Tischendorf, and numbered 81 in Westcott and Hort, and 565 in

TiGr. Mark of this manuscript was edited by Belsheim in 1885, with a collation

of the other three Gospels. It is a valuable cursive, as appears from what is said ofit in W-H : " The most valuable cursive for the preservation of Western readings

in the Gospels is 81, a St. Petersburg manuscript called 2J" by Tischendorf, asstanding second in a list of documents collated by Muralt. It has a large ancientelement, in great measure Western, and in St Mark its ancient readings arenumerous enough to be of real importance." See above, under Codex Np. 68.

eio-dWpuio-ii', read by our critical editions on the authority of tt B L X,

or Trpo<T(j>ipw<TU' by the textus receptus with A Q R, etc. Both

concur, also, in the omission of the first rj t( in the same verse.

What is here said as to the close affinity of Origen's Bible with

Codex D is corroborated by the testimony of the Athos manuscript

discovered by von der Goltz (see above, p. 90). This manuscript

confirms what we knew before—viz. that Marcion's text had -xpunov

and not Kupiov or 6c6v in 1 Cor. x. 9. But it also tells us what we

did not know—viz. that xPl<rr°v was tne on'v reading known to

Origen, and that Kvpiov in the Synodical Epistle addressed to Paul of

Samosata, published by Turrianus (in Routh's Reliquia Sacra, ill-2

299), is not the original reading but a later substitute for xpioroV.

This is made out by Zahn in the ThLbl., 1899, col. 180, who con-

cludes by saying that Clement, Eel. Proph., 49, should not be omitted

in a proper apparatus, and that Kvpiov ought never again to be printed

in the text. Our most recent editors, Tischendorf, Westcott and

Hort, Weiss, and Baljon, put Kvpiov in their text without so much as

mentioning xpio-ToV in the margin, or among the Noteworthy Rejected

Readings, or in the list of Interchanged Words (Weiss, p. 7). In the

Stuttgart edition the text is determined by a consensus of previous

editions, and I was obliged to let Kvpiov stand in the text, but I have

put -xpio-Tov in the margin, as Tregelles also did. In this instance the

textus receptus is actually'oetter than our critical editions. Therejected reading is again the Western, and Zahn, in commenting on

the newly-discovered testimony as to the text of 1 John iv. 3 (see

below, p. 327), pertinently remarks that "here again it is perfectly

evident, as any discerning person might have known, that manyimportant readings which were wont to be contemptuously dismissed

as Western, were long prevalent in the East as well, not only amongthe Syrians but also among the Alexandrians, and were only discarded

by the official recensions of the text that were made subsequent to the

time of Origen." These illustrations will serve to show that not only

is the editing of the Patristic texts no easy matter, but also that the

employment even of the best editions is not unaccompanied with risks.

See Koetschau, Bibelcitate bet Origenes, ZfwTh., 1900, pp. 321-378.

(3) The Rev. Prebendary Ed. Miller is at present at work on a

Textual Commentary upon the Holy Gospels, on the ground of

Burgon's Collection and his own researches. A specimen of this

work (Matthew v. 44) is given in his Present State oj the Textual

Controversy respecting the Holy Gospels, which was printed for private


circulation, and may be had of the author. 1 In this little pamphlet

he takes up the question (p. 30) whether Origen in the De Oratione 1

(De la Rue, i. 198 ; Koetschau, ii. 299, 22) quotes from Luke (vi. 28)

or Matthew (v. 44), and decides for the latter. Koetschau is of

the opposite opinion, giving " Luke vi. 28 (Matthew v. 44)." In the

case of Patristic quotations, it will be seen that matters are frequently

very complicated. It must be borne in mind, too, that the various

writers did not use the same copy of the Scriptures all their life long.

At different times and in different localities they must necessarily

have had different copies before them.

(4) It is further to be observed that in the case of controversial

writings, such as those of Origen against Celsus, and Augustine

against the Manichaeans, the question must always be considered

whether the Scriptural quotations found in them are quotations madeby Origen and Augustine themselves, or taken by them from the

writings they assail or refer to ; and also whether the quotations have

been made directly from a manuscript of the Bible, or from the

works of a previous writer. Borrowing from an author without

acknowledgment may have been a much more common thing in

olden times than it is even at present.

In Clement of Rome (c. 13), in Clement of Alexandria (Stromata,

ii. p. 476), and partly also in the Epistle of Polycarp (c. 2), we find

the following quotation :—

" Be ye merciful that ye may obtain mercy :

forgive that ye may be forgiven : as ye do, so shall it be done to you :

as ye give, so shall it be given to you : as ye judge, so shall ye be

judged : as ye are kind, so shall kindness be shown to you : with

what measure ye mete, it shall be meted unto you." We find also in

Clement of Rome (c. 46), and in Clement of Alexandria (Stromata,

iii. p. 561), the quotation :" Woe to that man : it were good for him if

he had never been born, rather than that he should offend one of myelect : it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his

neck and he be drowned in the depth of the sea, than that he shouldoffend one of my little ones." Neither of these quotations is foundliterally in our canonical Gospels. Accordingly, Rendel Harris con-

cludes from the testimony of these various witnesses that they musthave been taken from an Urevangelium, now perished (Contemporary

1 The First Part has been issued : A Textual Commentary upon the HolyGospels. Part I. St. Matthew, Division I., cc. i.-xiv. (London, Bell, 1899).See notice by Gwilliam in The Critical Review, May 1900. In this workOrigen is also cited for Matt. v. 44.

Review, Sept. 1897). This view is combated, it seems to me rightly,

by H. T. Andrews in the Expositor}' Times for November 1897,

p. 94 f He thinks it probable that Clement of Alexandria and

Polycarp are both dependent on Clement of Rome. 1

(5) In spite of all these difficulties, a systematic examination of the

Patristic quotations remains one of the most important tasks for the

textual criticism of the N. T. We have most useful collections,

both ancient and modem, of passages from the Fathers to illustrate

the history of the Canon, and their use of the Scriptures has been

scrutinised in the interests of dogmatic history, but there are not

yet, so far as I know, any collections of Patristic quotations to eluci-

date the history of the text. Two things are specially wanted at

present. One is a collection, arranged according to time and locality,

of all the passages in which the Fathers appeal to avTtypa<f>a. In the

new volumes of Origen, e.g., we find two such references—Kara rivai-anr

a\mypa<piav rov Kara Mapxov eiayycAibu (i. 113), and koto ra koivo.

tCv AvTiypafav (ii. 52>.2 The other desideratum is a collection of

all the passages in the biographies of the Saints where mention is

made of the writing of Biblical manuscripts. It is said of Evagrius,

e.g., in the Historia Lausiaca (c. 28 in Preuschen, Palladius, p. in),

€v<f>vu>s yap lypa<p( rbv 6£vpvyx°v \<^PaK^VPa > ar>d the preparation of

Biblical manuscripts is also referred to in the Vita Epiphanii (ed.

Petav. ii.), and in Cassiodorus, De Institution Divinarum Literarum

(see above, p. 50). On the use hitherto made of Patristic testimony

see the section De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis in TiGr., 1 129-1230.

An abridged list of those mentioned there will be found in Baljon's

Neiv Testament, pp. xv.-xxiii. A catalogue of the names and dates

of the Patristic writers most frequently cited in critical editions of the

1 In the Expository Times for October 1897, p. 13 ft. I have called attention

to another instance in which a Scriptural quotation (Isaiah Hi. 5) is given with

remarkable similarity in the Apostolic Constitutions, with its original (i. 10, iii 5,

vii. 204), in Ignatius (Ad Trallianos, viii.), and in 2nd Clement (c. xiii.). Similar

things are to be observed even in the N.T., as, e.g., in Mark i. 2, where a quotation

from Malachi iii. 1 is inserted between the heading, " In the prophet Isaiah," and

the words taken from that book. But they are found also in the writings of Paul,

which has led to the view that he may possibly have used some sort of dogmatic

anthology of the O. T. Clement of Alexandria has a good many quotations from

Philo. On his quotations from the Gospels, see P. M. Barnard, The Biblical

Text of Clement of Alexandria in the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.

Texts and Studies, v. 5, Cambridge, 1899.

2 See below, Appendix II., 'Avrlyptupa.


N. T. is given in Scrivener, ii. pp. 172-174. 1 See also Urt., p. 22,

56 f., 94. On the Old Latin Didascalia, see Ed. Hauler in the

W.S.B., 1895, vol. cxxxiv. p. 40 ft, and the Mitteilungen of B. G.

Teubner, 1897, ii. p. 52." On the Biblical text of Filastrius (C.S.E.,

vol. xxxviii., 1898), see Kroll in the notice of Marx's edition in the

Berlin. Phil. Wochenschrift, 1898, 27. On Jovinian, see TU., New

Series, ii. 1, etc. On the quotations from the Gospels in Novatian

(Pseudo-Cyprian) see Harnack in TU., xiii. 4.

1 Vide infra. Appendix I.

* Fasciculus i., edited by Hauler, 1900.

CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 157

CHAPTER III.

THEORY AND PRAXIS OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1

There is no special theory of the textual criticism of the

New Testament. The task and the method are the same for

all literary productions. The task is to exhibit what the

original writer intended to communicate to his readers, and

the method is simply that of tracing the history of the docu-

ment in question back to its beginning, if, and in so far as,

we have the means to do so atour command. Diversity of

treatment cafi only arise when the fortunes of one written

work have been more chequered and complicated than those

of another, or when we have more abundant means at our dis-

posal to help us in the one case than in the other. The task

is very simple when we have only one completely independent

document to deal with, as in the case of several of the recently

discovered papyri, but this occurs very seldom with literary

texts. In this case all that we have to do is to see that we

read the existing text correctly, and then by means of the

1I could desire no better motto for this third section than the words of Augus-

tine : Codicibus emendandis primitus debet invigilare sollertia eorum qui scripturas

nosse desiderant, ut emendatis non emendati cedant (De Doctrina Christiana,

ii. 14, 21, where the saying about the interpretum numerositas, cited on page 108,

is also found). Or if not these words, then those of our Lord himself, ylytaSf

Siieitioi Tpax-tfrrai, which Origen applied to the verification of the canon, but

which, taken in the sense of 1 Thess. v. 21, are equally applicable to the work of

the "lower" criticism. Apollos, the pupil of Marcion, also vindicated the right

of Biblical criticism with these same words. Epiphanius, Haeres., xliv. 2 (Zahn,

GK.,i. 175).

so-called internal criticism to determine whether the text so Jpje™*^

received can be correct. Even when several witnesses are at

our command, we cannot altogether dispense with this internal

criticism in the matter of sifting and weighing their testimony,

only it would be unfortunate were we left with such a sub-

jective criterion alone. For not only in such a case would

different scholars come to very different conclusions, but even

one and the same scholar would not be able to avoid a certain

amount of uncertainty and inconsistency in most cases. The

principle laid down in the maxim, lectio difficilior placet, or, as

Bengel more correctly and more cautiously puts it, proclivi

scriptioni praestat ardua, is perfectly sound ; that reading is

correct, is the original reading, from which the origin of

another or of several others can be most easily explained.

But how seldom can this be established with certainty ! Take

an illustration :

—

How does the Apocalypse, and the New Testament with it, Conclusion

conclude ? Leaving out of account additions like " Amen "Apoc

e

a|ypSe.

or " Amen, Amen," and variations like " The grace of the Lord

Jesus," and " our Lord Jesus," and " the Lord Jesus Christ,"

and "Christ" simply, we find that the following forms are

given :

—

(l) JUtTO.

>58 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III.

general, and that (3) is the result of a combination of these

two. On the other hand, Tregelles and Westcott and Hort

favour (5), without so much as mentioning (4) in their margin;

while Bousset, the latest expositor of the Apocalypse, regards

(3) as the correct reading, and thinks that in all probability

both (4) and (5) are due to a transcriptional error. Who is to

decide when doctors disagree ? Manifestly one might argue

oh quite as good if not better grounds than those of Weiss to

the very opposite conclusion—viz. that a later writer who

wished the Apocalypse, and with it the New Testament, to

conclude with as comprehensive a benediction as possible,

substituted the words " Grace be with all " in place of the

restricted and somewhat strange expression " Grace be with

the saints." I did not observe that Bousset still defends the

third form when I said in the first edition of this work that this

reading does not fall to be considered at all. But my reason

for saying so was not " because this form proves to be a com-

bination of the other two," or " because the authorities for it

are later," but because it could be shown that its supporters

follow a corrected text in other places as well as this ; and I

concluded with observing that the decision between (4) and

(5) could not be made to depend solely on internal criteria

either, but depended on the decision come to regarding the

general relationship between the witnesses that support each

one, in this instance between A, as supporting (4), and x, as

supporting (5).

(1) It may be stated here, merely by way of comment, that the first

form of the benediction, " with you all," was clearly translated into

Greek by Erasmus from his Latin Bible, without the authority of a

single Greek manuscript. But in spite of this, it is still propagated

in the textus receptus by the English Bible Society, and even in the

last revision of Luther's German Bible it was allowed to stand with-

out demur. The English Authorised Version had it in this form,

but the Revised Version adopts the fifth form " with the saints," and

puts (4) in the margin, with a note to the effect that " two ancient

authorities read ' with all.'

"


The second form, "with us all," which was adopted by

Melanchthon in his Greek Bible of 1545, published by Herwag, is

just as arbitrary an alteration. The third form, " with all the saints,"

is read by the Complutensian with Q, with more than forty minus-

cules, and the Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian versions. The fourth,

"with all," is found in A and Codex Amiatinus, while the fifth,

"with the saints," is given by N and the Old Latin g. In the

Syriac version of the Apocalypse, edited by Gwynn in 1897, a sixth

form seems to have been brought to light, which Baljon, who himself

decides for (5), cites as ficra irairaii' rStv ayiW airov : Syr*"!™1.

But the pronoun, which in Syriac is indicated by a suffix only, is

employed now and again merely to represent the Greek definite

article, so that this new Syriac manuscript does not give us a sixth

form but only another witness to the third. On the other hand,

Gwynn mentions the omission of the entire verse in Primasius, a fact

that neither Tischendorf nor Weiss takes the least notice of, and he

adduces lastly that a manuscript of the Vulgate reads "cum omnibushominibus." One sees from an illustration like this what an amountof pains is required seriously to apply, even in a single point,

Bengel's principle that the smallest particle of gold is gold, but that

nothing must be passed as gold that has not been proved to be such

(Introduclio in Crisin Novi Testamenti, § I, p. 572).

(2) Literature.—See especially Gebhardt (Urt., p. 16). Ed.

Reuss, Geschichte der h. Schriften des N. T, Braunschweig, 1887,

§ 351 ff. S. P. Tregelles, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism ofthe NT. (= vol. iv. of Home's Introduction, 1877). F. H. A.Scrivener (see above, p. 6); also Adversaria Critica Sacra, edited

by Miller, Cambr. 1893. B. F. Westcott, The New Testament in

Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. ii., London, 1863. C. E.

Hammond, Outlines of Textual Criticism, Oxford, 1890. Westcott-Hort, vol. ii. (see p. 21). B. B. Warfield, Introduction to the TextualCriticism of the N. T., New York, 1887; London, 1893. J. W.Burgon, Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark,Oxford and London, 187 1 ; also The Traditional Text of the HolyGospels vindicated and established, edited by Miller, London, 1896;also, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the HolyGospels, edited by Miller, London and Cambridge, 1896. TheOxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the N T. held at NewCollege on May 6, 1897 ; with a preface (by Miller) explanatory ofthe Rival Systems, 1897, pp. xvi. 43. Ed. Miller, The Present State

i6o GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 161

of the Textual Controversy respecting the Holy Gospels (see above,

P- «52)-

Martin (Abbe J. P.), Introduction a la Critique tcxtuelk du N.T,

in five volumes, with plates and facsimiles: vol. i. pp. xxxvi. 327,

Paris, 1884, 25 fr. ; vol. ii. pp. ix. 554, 1884, 40 fr. ; vol. iii. pp. vi.

512, 1885, 40 fr. ; vol. iv. pp. vi. 549, 1886, 40 fr. ; vol. v. pp. xi.

248 and 50 pp. of facsimiles, 1886, 20 fr. Also by the same author,

Description technique des manuscrits grecs relatifs au N.T. conserves

dans les Bibliotheques de Paris. Supplement to the foregoing, Paris,

1884, pp. xix. 205, with facsimiles, 20 fr.;Quatre manuscrits im-

portants du N.T. auxquels on peut en ajouter un cinquieme, Paris,

1886, pp. 62, 3 fr. : Les plus anciens mss. grecs du N.T, leur origine,

leur veritable caractere, in the Revue des Quest. Hist., 1884, No. 71,

pp. 62-109; Origine et la Critique textuelle du N.T, Paris.

Reprinted from the Rev. des Quest. Hist, for Jan. 1885, No. 73,

pp. S-62 -

Th. Zahn, Geschichte des N.T. Kanons: vol. 1., Das N.T. vor

Origenes, Part 1, 1888; Part 2, 1889. Vol. ii., Urkunden und

Belege zum ersten und dritten Band, Part 1, 1890; Part 2, 1892.

The third vol. has not yet appeared. The order of the books of the

N.T. is discussed in vol. ii. p. 343 ff., and the conclusion of Mark's

Cospel in the same vol., p. 910 ff.

Salmon (Geo.), Some thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the N.T,

London, 1897, pp. xv. 162. Blass, Philology of the Gospels, London,

1898, pp. viii. 250. Ada Bryson, Recent Literature on the text of

the N.T in the Expository Times for April 1899, pp. 294-300.

M. Vincent, History of the Textual Criticism of the NT, 1 900. G. L.

Cary, The Synoptic Gospels, with a chapter on the Textual Criticism of

the N.T, New York, 1900. See also Prof. Jannaris in the

Expositor, vol. viii. of Series V. There is an article in the American

Journal of Theology, 1897, iv. p. 927 ff., entitled Alexandria and the

N.T, which I have not been able to consult.

In attempting to restore the text of the New Testament

as nearly as possible to its original form, it is essential to

remember that the New Testament, as we have it to-day,

is not all of one piece, but consists of twenty-seven separate

documents now arranged in five groups, and that every several

document and every several group has had its own peculiar

history. Of these groups the most complicated, perhaps, is

the one with which the New Testament opens—viz. the

Gospels.

It is quite uncertain when our four Gospels were first Gospels,

written together in one volume and arranged in the orderthat is now common. The Muratorian Fragment on theCanon l

is defective at the beginning, but seems to imply this

arrangement. It was supposed that the Gospels were written

in the following order—viz. Matthew first and John last Theorder, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, which is found in nearlyall the Greek and Syriac manuscripts, was made popular byEusebius and Jerome. The former followed it in his Canons,which were afterwards adopted by Jerome in his Latin Bible.

According to Eusebius (Eccl. Hist., vi. 25)," Origen knew this

order, though he very frequently cites the Gospels in theorder Matthew, Luke, Mark.

The following arrangements are also found :

—

(2) Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, in the earlier (Curetonian)Syriac and in the Canon Mommsenianus, a catalogue of theBooks of the Bible and of the works of Cyprian, originatingin Latin Africa about the year 360, and first published byMommsen.3

(3) Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, in the so-called Ambrosi-aster and in a Catalogue of the Sixty Canonical Books.

> The fragment was edited by Tiegelles with a facsimile in 1867. It is givenin Westcotts Canon of the N. T., Appendix C, where also see the section on theMuratonan Canon, Part i. c. ii. It will be found also in Preuschen's AnaltctaKurzere Ttxte .... pp. 129-137 (the eighth number of G. KrUger's Sammlungausgtwahlttr tirchen- und dogmcngtschUWchcr QuelUnschriften, Freib. andLeipzig, 1893).

• Quoted in Westcott, Canon, part ii. c. ii. § 1, and in Zahn's Einleilung ii i 7oGiven in Preuschen. In the manuscripts it is entitled " Indiculum Veteris etNovi Testament! et Caecili Cipriani." It was first made known from a MSat Cheltenham in 1886. As it is mostly assigned to the year 365 (see also'JUlicher, EmUilung, p. 336) the words ofW.-W. may be repeated here :

"S. Berger

tamen aliter sentit, rationibus commotus quarum una certe nobis satis vera videturConcordant enim numeri in Veteri Testamento cum codicibus Hieronymianis"e.g. in libns Regum quattuor, Esaiae, Jeremiae, et duodecim Prophetarum'Tobiae, et Macchabeorum secundo. Indiculus tamen sine dubio anUquus est"

162 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III.

(4) Matthew, John, Mark, Luke— i.e. the two Apostles put

before the two pupils of Apostles, in the Codex Claromon-

tanus.1 This order occurs also in the Arabic writer Masudi's

Meadows of Gold?

(5) Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, in Codd. D and X, in the

Apostolic Constitutions, in Ulnlas, and especially in the Old

Latin Manuscripts; see Corssen, Monarchianische Prologe,

p. 65, in TU. xv. I.3

(6) John, Luke, Mark, Matthew, in Codex k.

(7) John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, in the Vocabularies of the

Egyptian versions.

(8) John, Matthew, Luke, Mark, in Tertullian and cod. 19.

See Arthur Wright, Some New Testament Problems, p. 196 ff.4

This very variety shows that for a long time, perhaps till

the third century, at all events much longer than the Pauline

Epistles, the Gospels were propagated singly, perhaps on

rolls, and only afterwards incorporated in a codex. And

this makes it probable that the text of our manuscripts was

not taken from a single copy of the first Tetraevangelium.

More than probable we cannot call it, seeing that a copyist

may have had any sort of reasons of his own for disarranging

the order of the books given in his exemplar, as may still be

gathered luckily from the position occupied by Hebrews in

Codex B. The probability is heightened, however, by the

fact that our manuscripts display a considerably greater

amount of textual variation in the Gospels than in the Pauline

Epistles, though not in all to the same extent as in D which

contains an entirely peculiar recension, especially in Luke.

One of the most remarkable indications of this is afforded by

the discovery made by E. Lippelt, a pupil of Professor Blass.

The order of the books in D is Matthew, John, Luke, Mark,

Acts, where it will be seen that the two portions of the book

1 Catalogus Claramontanus given in Westcott, Canon, Appendix D, p. 563.

2 Translated into French, dairies (Tor, i 123 : one volume into English by

Sprenger. 1841 ; Sayous, Ji'sus Christ (faprts Mohammed, p. 34.

3 See Zahn, Einl., ii. 176; GK„ ii. 364-375. l°'4- ' See Addenda, p. xvi.

CHAP. III.] THEORY AND l'RAXIS. 163

inscribed to Theophilus are separated by Mark. Now Lippelt

observed that while the name Johannes is regularly spelt with

two v's ('Iwaww) in Matthew, John, and Mark, it is just as

regularly spelt with one ('Iwdvqs) in Luke and Acts, sundered

though these two books are by Mark, where the other spell-

ing prevails. 1 This shows an accuracy of tradition which is

surprising, but till now it has only been traced in this one

manuscript. The others write the name throughout with two

v's and B as consistently with one. In this connection the

question naturally arises whether certain liberties were not

taken with the books on the occasion of their collection and

arrangement. Resch,^., thinks that it was then that thesecond

Gospel received the conclusion or appendix which is found in

most of our manuscripts, and Rohrbach holds a similar

opinion.2 I have elsewhere expressed the idea that the

peculiar opening of Mark is to be accounted for in this way.3

Zahn, however, doubts whether the use of ap\V and -reXo?

for apxerai and ireKeadi}, incipit and explicit, can be estab-

lished for early times.4I have found it in Greek Psalters,

though not very early, I admit, where ap\i twv wSwv occurs

instead of wSat as the superscription of the Hymns at the

end of the Psalter.5 However, there is no need to dwell

1 The numbers are as follows :

—

Matthew,


lurther on this point. Zahn (p. 174) is quite right in his con-

tention that the usual titles Kara MaOQatov, eta,1 imply a

collection of the Gospels of which EvayyeXtov is the general

title.

If, then, for the sake of simplicity, we take as our goal the

first manuscript of the Tetraevangelium, one would think it

must be possible with the means at our command gradually

to work back to it Even the latest of our manuscripts is

surely copied from an earlier one, and that one from another,

and so on always further and further back, so that all we have

to do is to establish their genealogy, pretty much as Reuss

has done for the printed editions of the New Testament ; and

seeing we have manuscripts as old as the fourth and fifth

century, that means that the entire period of a thousand years

prior to the invention of printing is bridged over at once, so

that the task would appear to be simply that of throwing a

bridge over the first few centuries of the Christian era. Andby going on comparing the witnesses and always eliminating

those that prove unreliable, it must be possible, one would

suppose, in this way to arrive at the original. But a little

experience will shortly moderate our expectations.

At the outset it is very much against us that we have no

really serviceable text for comparison. The text of our

present critical editions is a patchwork of many colours, more

wonderful than the cloak of Child Roland of old. In fact it

is a text that never really existed at all. In the preparation

of my Supplement, which I undertook with the object of

making the text of Codex Bezae easily accessible to every one,

I compared the text of that manuscript with that of Tischen-

dorf-Gebhardt's edition, and I saw clearly that my work would

necessarily present a very confused appearance indeed. I also

issued an interleaved edition of my Stuttgart New Testamentwith a similar object—viz. to furnish a convenient means of

1 On cata or kata in the subscriptions, titles, prefaces, etc., of Latin manu-scripts, see the index in W.-W., to which add the remarkable phrase cata Umpus,which codex e gives in John v. 4, in place of secundum Umpus in the other

manuscripts.

CHAP. III.] THEORY AND FRAXIS. 165

comparing the text of manuscripts and of Patristic quotations,

but that, too, labours under the same disadvantage. Whoever

intends really to further the textual criticism of the NewTestament will have to issue a copy of a single manuscript

printed in such a way as will make it practically convenient for

the comparison of different texts, something like Tischendorfs

edition of Codex Sinaiticus (Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum,

1 863), which, however, is of little use for other purposes, or like

Schjott's edition of the New Testament (see above, p. 24).

But as these are in the hands of very few, there is nothing for

it at present but to take one of our most common texts,

always bearing in mind its composite character. This feature

of the text appears at the very outset in the title. In k B (D)

it is Kara NaQBaiov. Codex D is defective at the beginning

down to c. i. 20, but Kar iiaddaiov is found regularly as the

title at the top of the pages, a fact which Tischendorf has

overlooked. Most other manuscripts, C E K M etc., have

EcayyeXioi' Kara NarOatov. If this latter is held as incorrect,

then all these manuscripts should for the future be droppedout of account and x B D alone be regarded as authoritative.

Again, in verse 2, n* has Io-ok twice, while the others have

la-aax, so that N too would drop out, leaving B standing

alone. But then in verse 3 our editors forthwith reject B,

which reads Zape, and decide in favour of the others whichhave Za/oa. Whether this may not be a little premature,

seeing that there are other places where e is found for final

n,» and that one manuscript, 56, has deliberately corrected

Zapa into Zape in Gen. xxxviii. 30, where a third has Zape, wedo not pause to determine. The point is simply this, that in

these first three verses there is no manuscript that is alwaysright in the judgment of our editors. True, the cases wehave been considering are trifling, the differences being of anorthographical nature merely, and one must not be too par-

ticular in such matters, though at the same time the oft-

quoted maxim, minima non curat praetor, is nowhere less1 See Field, Htxapla, i. p. lxxii.

i66 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III.

influence.

applicable than in textual criticism. But the same state of

things reappears immediately where we have differences

involving important matters of fact. What is the fact in

verse 1 1 ? Did Josias beget Jechoniah, or did he beget

Joachim and Joachim Jechoniah? Verse 16 has already

been referred to : in this case our oldest Greek manuscripts

would give no occasion to mention the verse. But in verse

25 we have again to ask which is correct, erticev viov or freKtv

Dogmatic rov vlov avrijs rov irpwTOTOKov ? And when we hear Jerome

say—Ex hoc loco quidam perversissime suspicantur et alios

filios habuisse Mariam, dicentes primogenitum non dici nisi

qui habeat et fratres, we learn already how dogmatic motives

may have some influence upon the form of the text. And,

moreover, when we call to mind the words of Luke ii. 7, we

are made aware of another thing that may exert a disturbing

Parallel influence in the Gospels—viz. the tendency to alter the textpassages.

jn con formity with the parallel passage. Apart from the

stylistic peculiarities of Codex D, we meet with no materially

important variants in our Greek manuscripts of Matthew till

we come to the Sermon on the Mount. The only thing is in

iii. 15, where two Latin witnesses have an addition which is

evidently taken from a Greek source : et cum baptizaretur,

lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita ut timerent omnes qui

advenerant (congregati erant). This interpolation, however,

does not concern the criticism of the text of the New Testa-

ment, seeing that it is derived from some source outside the

Canon.

On the other hand, there is a great question as to the order

of the first three Beatitudes in Matthew v. 3-5, whether they

are to be read in the order given in the common text, irruxol

TrevOovvres .... irpaeit ..... or as our recent

editors prefer ittw\oI .... irpaeif .... Trevflowrec. 1 The

latter arrangement is attested by only two Greek manuscripts

—D and 33. Now, if their evidence is accepted here in spite of

1 The order, irpafir .... wraxot .... wivSovvrts, in Baljon is due lo a

strange oversight which is not corrected in the Addenda et Corrigenda.

THEORY AND PRAXIS. 167CHAP. III.]

its apparent weakness, how can we justify the refusal to

acknowledge the authority of D in other similar cases?

Verse 22, but a short way down, is a case in point Here D,

with most authorities, exhibits the sorely-contested «*£- But

our modern critics will have nothing to do with it, going by

K B, Origen, Jerome, and Athanasius. Merx (Die vter

kanonischen Evangelien, pp. 231-237) has recently come for-

ward as a strong supporter of it, on the ground that Syr"n also

has it,1 but how is its omission, especially by Jerome, to be

explained ? The Vulgate itself shows that it was easier to

insert it than to omit it, because out of twenty-four manu-

scripts collated in W.-W. three have it, though it certainly

does not belong to the text of the Vulgate.2

In view of these illustrations, which serve to show the some-

what haphazard way in which the text of our editions hitherto

has been arrived at, the question becomes very important

how the original text is to be restored in disputed or doubtful

cases.

The first case, or, if we like to call it, the last, but at all <**£»£events the one most easy of settlement, is when the correct

reading is no longer found in any of our witnesses, neither in

Greek manuscript, version, nor patristic quotation. Here

we must simply have recourse to conjecture. Not long ago

philologists evinced such a fondness for conjectural emenda-

tion that the question might not unreasonably be asked why

they did not rather themselves write the text that they took

in hand to explain. At the same time, the aversion to this

method of criticism which till recently prevailed and still to

some extent prevails, especially in the matter of the New

Testament text, is just as unreasonable. Tischendorf, e.g., did

not admit a single emendation of this nature into his text,

while Westcott and Hort consider it to be necessary in only a

1 To the passages which may be adduced in support of the reading, add Clement,

Horn. 7j 32 (Lagarde, 92, 35), <a 32 (118, 31).

* Codex D and Syr,ln also agree in omitting v. 30, but this is probably no more

than a remarkable coincidence.

1 68 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAr. III.

very few cases, such as Colossians ii. i8, though they also

decline to adopt any conjectural readings in their text. For

AEOPAKENEMBATEYflN in this passage, which Weizsacker

renders " pluming himself upon his visions," they would read

AEPA KENEMBATEYfiN, which is obtained by the omission

of a single letter and a different division of the words. In

Holland conjectural criticism is freely indulged in,1 the

example of Cobet and his school being followed by such critics

as S. A. Naber, W. C. van Manen, W. H. van de Sande-Bak-

huyzen, van de Becke Callenfels, D. Harting, S. S. de Koe,

H. Franssen, J. M. S. Baljon, J. H. A. Michelsen, and J. Cramer.2

Baljon has adopted a great number of such conjectural emen-dations in his edition of the text published in 1898 (see above,

p. 24). In place of 7roX\oJ SiSaa-KaXoi, e.g., in James iii. 1,

Lachmann would read ttwXoi SuvkoXoi, Naber irXavoSiSaa-KaXoi,

while Junius, de Hoop-Scheffer, and Bakhuyzen prefer iroXv-

XaXoi on the ground that m04 has nolite multiloqui esse.3 Sofar, therefore, this last is not pure conjecture. For Kptveru in

Col. ii. 16 Lagarde wished to read Kipvarw, because the verb

in found in the Peshitto at this place is elsewhere used to

translate Qpoe'iv (Matt xxiv. 6), rapucrativ (John xiv. I, 27),

eyKoirrew (Gal. v. 7), and also Sia<rrpe<peiv (Eccl. vii. 18 ; xii. 3).

My proposal to read eir\ trovrov in Apoc^xviii. 17, a reading

adopted by Baljon in his text, instead'ofeiri tottov or eir)

irXolwv as given in our manuscripts, was a pure conjecture, but

it has the support of super mare in Primasius. 4 There is

therefore no objection on principle to the method of con-

1 See Urt., 55 ff, where works on this subject are cited.

2 See also Linwood, Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as applied to the NewTestament, 1873.

3 On the symbol m, see above, p. 114.

* The converse occurs in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., iv. 15, in the address of Polycarp's

Martyrium. There the reading kotA Mvtqv, which is also found in the Syriac,

should, according to Harnack's Chronologic der altchristl. Lit., i. 341, be replaced

by kotA Ttavra rirov, or rather by kbtA T(fxoc which is found in I Mace. xii. 4 ;

2 Mace. xii. 2. Compare also the variation found in the manuscripts in 2 Cor.x. 15 between xoiroif, irowif, and toitoij, and between totos and totoj in Judithvi. 21. See also Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., \. 15, 23.


jecture, nor to the adoption of conjectural readings in the text,

though it is only to be resorted to as the ultima ratio regis and

with due regard to all the considerations involved, transcrip-

tional, linguistic, and otherwise.1 There is no essential difficulty

in supposing, e.g., that Kipvarw in Col. ii. 16 was first corrupted

into Kpwarw and then into Kpivirw. Such a transposition of

the liquid is quite common in all languages.2 But we must

see if Kipvarw has the sense required in the passage. There is

no doubt a reference to drinking here, and so far, therefore,

the word seems to suit the context better. It is also true that

evidence is not wanting of the metaphorical use of the word

proposed to be inserted. Passow, e.g., gives to rrjt <f>v(rtwt

trxXripov Kipvav from Polybius iv. 21, 3, and rhv iroXiv Kipvav from

Aristophanes i. i. In spite of this, however, I have consider-

able misgivings whether this sense of the word is in harmony

with Pauline usage and is suitable to the context of the

passage. If it is sought to justify a conjectural reading on

transcriptional grounds, then, as has been observed (p. 82),

a strict account must be taken of the manner of writing

1 The opposite view is expressed in Scrivener, ii. 244 :" It is now agreed among

competent judges that Conjectural Emendation must never be resorted to, even in

passages of acknowledged difficulty"; and he quotes from Roberts ( Words of the

New Testament'): "conjectural criticism is entirely banished from the field ....simply because there is no need for it." With this, however, he does not quite

agree. He admits that there are passages respecting which we cannot help framing

a shrewd suspicion that the original reading differed from any form in which they

are now presented to us. He notes as passages for which we should be glad of

more light, Acts vii. 46, xiii. 32, xix. 40, xxvi. 28 ; Rom. viii. 2 ; I Cor. xii. 2,

where Ephes. ii. II might suggest 8ti tori; 1 Tim. vi. 7 ; 2 Pet. iii. 10, 12 ;

Jude 5, 22, 23. G. Kxllger expresses himself to the same effect. He would have

no conjecture, however well founded, received into the text See his notice of

Koetschau's Origen in the L. Cil., No. 39, 1899. I find that Swete has had no

objection to adopt a conjecture of mine in his second edition of the last volume of

the Cambridge Septuagint (Enoch xiv. 3). If such a thing is permissible in the

case of Enoch, why should it not be allowable in the New Testament ? As clever

suggestions maybe noted iKoXdipiaay for the hapax legomenon lm<pa\[&oav, Mark

xii. 4 (Linwood, Van de Sande-Bakhuyzen) and \ta/8irovai for pavtirtvai, I Tim.

v. 13 (Hitzig). Lagrange (A'evue Bibliquc, 1900, p. 206) cautions us against

" preter de Pesprit a 1'Esprit Saint."2 Compare my conjecture of DnnglJ for Dginip, Ps. lxviii. 31, and see below,

p. 236.


Eclectic

method.

prevalent at the time when the corruption is supposed to have

originated. Luke's handwriting must have been very bad

indeed if we are to suppose that the scribe of D or the parent

manuscript mistook qpirfa-acrde for the enigmatical ifiapvvaTe

in Acts iii. 14, though it is quite conceivable how he came to

write S6£n instead of Se£ia in v. 3 1 , or conversely wrote edegavro

instead of iSogacrav in xiii. 48, or that KAITOYTQ2YN#S2NO-Y2IN was made into KAIOYTOSEYN^NHZOYSIN or

vice versa} A slight experience in the reading of ancient

manuscripts shows how easy it is to make mistakes of this

sort. And if we wish to see what mistakes of this sort actu-

ally do occur in Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus,

and Ephraemi, we have only to look into Morrish's HandyCo?icordance of the Septuagint? though of course the examples

there are all from the Old Testament. We have, e.g., dyrnrdio

for aTraraco ; uyu-rrt) for inrd-rr)',ayia^w for dyopd^io ', dyioy for

alyeios, dyyeiov, dypos, ytj ; aStaKvros for SidXvros ', /8aXXo>

and its compounds for Xafiftuvu) and its compounds ; Aady for

i-aoV, etc.

It is more difficult to answer the question how the text is

to be restored in cases where there is no lack of external

evidence. We have already seen that critics have hitherto

adopted an eclectic mode of procedure. In general, whenever

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus agree, editors, Tischendorf as well

as Westcott and Hort, give the preference to their testimony.

But if they do not agree, what is to be done? And what if

a third reading seems on internal grounds to be better than

either? In his Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the NewTestament, Salmon very pungently, but not altogether incor-

rectly, describes Westcott and Hort's method on the lines of

an anecdote told of Cato by Cicero :" To the question what

authorities should be followed, Hort answers, Follow B n.

But if B is not supported by x? Still follow B, if it has the

1 Meyer-Wendt8, p. 51. For an example of 2 repeated by mistake, cf.

EI5ITEAOI in B, Mark xiii. 13. Its erroneous omission is quite common.- Bagster, London, 1887.

CHAP. HI.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 171

su__pport of any other manuscript. But suppose B stands

quite alone? Even then it is not safe to reject B unless it

is clearly a clerical error. But suppose B is defective ? Then

follow n. And what about D ? What about killing a man I

"

Lagarde has said that the gag is the modern equivalent of

the stake. Codex D has not been gagged outright, to be sure,

but it has been shoved aside, and only now and then with

remarkable inconsistency has its evidence been accepted as

trustworthy. For one must surely call it inconsistent to follow

one side as a rule and then all at once to take sides with that

which is diametrically opposed to the first. In his Introduc-

tion, Hort, in the most brilliant manner one must admit, has

established the principle that the restoration of the text must

be grounded on the study of its history, and no one has

studied that history as carefully as Hort has done. But the

question remains whether he has not interpreted the history

wrongly, whether what he calls the Neutral text is really the

original, and whether that which he rejects as a Western

Corruption is really to be regarded as such.

I cannot presume to judge ; but I have the feeling that the History ofr ..,»,-. t transmission.

history of the transmission of our New Testament text must

be studied in quite another way from that in which it has

been done hitherto, and in a twofold direction :

—

(1) The manuscripts and their relation to each other must

be subjected to a still more searching investigation, and

(2) The works of the ecclesiastical writers, especially the

Commentaries and the Catenae, must be thoroughly explored

for any information they may have to give regarding the

history of the text of the New Testament, and these two

results must then be set in relation with each other.

With regard to the former task, it might not be essential to

make such a minute collation of the manuscripts as Ferrar,

Hoskier, and other investigators deemed necessary, and as

is certainly the right thing to do in the case of the oldest

documents. With such a mode of procedure, the task could

not be accomplished in any conceivable time. But suppose


Analogousworks.

the work was organised the way that Reuss did with the

printed editions, by selecting say a thousand passages for

comparison, it would be possible, and in a very short time weshould be much better informed than we are at present as to

the state of the text in our manuscripts, and especially in the

minuscules.

Such a task, moreover, must be preceded by a fresh scien-

tific statement of the way in which the text was propagated

previous to the invention of printing, on the lines laid downby Hort in the first fourteen paragraphs of his Introduc-

tion} A necessary preliminary to this is the study of

genealogy, in which we have an excellent guide in Ottokar

Lorenz's Lehrbuch der gesamten wissenschaftlichen Genealogie

(Berlin, 1898). See especially the first chapter of Part I. on

the distinction between Genealogical Tree (Table of gene-

alogy) and Table of Ancestors, and the third chapter of Part

II. on the problem of Loss of Ancestors.

All the ideas pertaining to the genealogy of living creatures,

such as crossing, heredity, and so forth, fall to be considered

also in the genealogy of manuscripts, the only difference being

that in the latter case new features make their appearance.

It has been asserted somewhere that if an Englishman, a Dutch-

man, a German, a Frenchman, and an American meet in a

company, the nationality of each is at once recognisable,

but it is impossible to determine their exact genealogical

relationships, and that the same impossibility exists in the

case of the manuscripts of the New Testament. That is

perhaps an exaggeration, but it is certainly a surprising

fact that so few even of our latest manuscripts can be

proved with certainty to be copies of manuscripts still in

existence, or at least to be derived from a commonoriginal.

It will be a very great help, particularly to those beginning

1 See Isaac Taylor's History of the Transmission of Ancient Books to ModernTimes (1827); and compare also the text-liooks on Hermeneutics, e.g. in

I. v. MUller's Handbuch der klassisthen Alteilnmsivissenschaft.

CHAP. HI.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 173

work in this field, to compare the method and results of

investigations pursued in similar and perhaps easier depart-

ments of study. Apart from the works of classical philolo-

gists, or works like the new edition of Luther's writings, a

great deal of most valuable research has been carried on of

late years in the matter of textual criticism, some of it very

extensive, some of it less so. Ed. Wdlfflin, eg., devoted his

attention to the Rule of St Benedict of Nursia, who died j^.^

some time after the year 542. His Rule, which extends only

to eighty-five pages of the Teubner size, is extant in manu-

scripts dating as far back as the seventh and eighth centuries.

By a comparison of these, Wolfflin was convinced that we

still possess the Rule essentially in the identical wording of

the original vulgar Latin, that Benedict himself had after-

wards made certain alterations and additions, and that we

have therefore to distinguish several (fortasse tres) editions. 1

Wolfflin purported to give the text of that recension which

he took to be the earliest. But we had no more than time

to congratulate ourselves on the satisfactory result arrived at

by this experienced philologist, when behold, another totally

different conclusion was announced by a younger worker in

the same field. Wolfflin had done little more than compare

the manuscripts, but Lud. Traube applied also the external

evidence afforded by the history of the text, and discovered

that certain manuscripts that Wolfflin had thrown aside

possessed a greater claim to originality.2

Similarly, E. C. Richardson gave several years to an ex- De Viris

amination of all the accessible manuscripts of the De VirisIllustnbus -

lllustribus of Jerome and Gennadius, a work not much larger

than the Rule of Benedict These manuscripts, about 120 in

1 Benedicti regula monachorum. Rcctnsuit Ed. Wolfflin, Lipsiae, Teubner,

1895, PC xv - 8 5> 8vo. See also his article on the Latinity of Benedict in the

Arch. f. Lot. Lexikogr. ix. 4, 1896, pp. 493-521.' Textgeschichte der Regula S. Bentdicti (Abh. d. 3 CI. d. i. At. d. Wiss.,

vol. xxi., Munich, 1898). Compare also The Text of St. Benedict's Rule by DomC. Butler, O.S.B. Reprinted from the Downside Review, December 1899,

12 pp.

'74 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. THEORY AND PRAXIS. 175

number, he grouped, and then framed his text in accordance

with them. 1 While his work was in the press, an edition was

published by C. A. Bernoulli, based on some of the manu-

scripts that Richardson also had used.2 But from the very

first sentence onwards, the two editors follow contradictory

authorities, so that while one gives parvam as the correct

reading, the other reads non parvam. But more than that,

the same Part of Texte und Untersuchungen that gave us

Richardson's laborious work contained a second piece of

work on the same material—viz., O. v. Gebhardt's edition of

the so-called Greek Sophronius, which is an old version of

Jerome's book. And the last chapter of this version, which

is autobiographical, contains indications, according to v.

Gebhardt's Introduction, that Jerome issued two editions of

his book, so that, if this be so, an entirely new grouping of

the manuscripts becomes necessary.

In the case of Holl's researches on the Sacra Parallela of

John Damascene, published in the same Collection,3 matters

are too complicated for beginners in textual criticism, but of

Julian's non-biblical texts mention may be made of the Recherches sur

la tradition manuscrite des lettres de I'Empereur Julien by

S. Bidez and Fr. Cumont (Brussels, 1898), as showing howmuch can be attained by combining the internal and external

history of the transmission of literary texts.4 In the field of

Biblical texts, and particularly of the New Testament, the

study of Wordsworth and White's Epilogus to the first volume

Latin New of their Novum Testamenlum Latine is to be specially recom-Testament. mended, particularly c. iv. De Patria et Indole Codicum nos-

trorum, c. v. De Textus Hisloria, and c. vi. De Regulis a nobis

in Textu constituendo adhibitis. As was said before, Jeromeundertook his revision of the Gospels in the year 383 ; his

work was of an entirely uniform texture, apart from a few1 TU. xiv. i, 1896.2 Krilger's Sammlung, Heft xi., Freiburg and Leipzig, 1895.3 TU, New Series, i. I, 1897.

* Compare also the differences between the editions of Josephus, published by

Niese and Naber.

CHAP. III.]

passages where a correction may have occurred even in the

original manuscript ; and there is a sufficiency of manuscripts

extant, some of them going back to the sixth century. One

of these, which formerly belonged to the Church of St.

Willibrord at Echternach, contains a note dated 558, and

copied into, it from the parent manuscript, to the effect :proe-

mendavi ut potui secundum codicem in bibliotheca Eugipi

presbyteri. quern ferunt fuisse sancti Hieronymi. (See above,

p. 122.) In these circumstances it must surely be pos-

sible, one would think, to arrive at some satisfactory con-

clusion. And yet, in spite of all this, and in spite of long

years of labour, many a problem remains to perplex the

editor of the Vulgate. To begin with, there is one striking

circumstance. Jerome executed his work at Rome, in

obedience to the commission of Pope Damasus. One would

therefore expect to find the best manuscripts in Rome, or at

least originating from Rome. But that is by no means the

case: " praeter expectationem accidit ut pauci vel nulli ex

codicibus optimis et antiquissimis originem Romanam clare

ostendant" The manuscript that editors consider the best

—

viz. Codex Amiatinus, now at Florence—was certainly at

Rome for a long time, but it was sent there as a present from

beyond the Alps ; indeed, it came from England. And on the

other hand it was not from Rome that the Latin Bible came

to England, or to Canterbury in particular, although Augustine

was sent thither by Pope Gregory the Great, but from the

South of Italy; in fact, it was from Naples. Codex Fuldensis,

which may have been brought to Fulda by Boniface, formerly

belonged to Bishop Victor of Capua ; the Echternach manu-

script referred to above came from the Lucullan Monastery

at Naples, while the manuscript from which Codex Amiatinus

was copied was written by Cassiodorus of Vivarium, and

therefore came from Calabria. The history of the trans-

mission of the Latin Bible reveals many other facts as strange

as these in connection with the locality to which manuscripts

belong. We must be prepared, therefore, for similar surprises


in the case of Greek manuscripts also, and need not be

astonished to hear that the Greek-Latin Codex Bezae, so

much decried as " Western," takes us back to Smyrna or

Ephesus by way of Lyons and by means of Irenaeus.1

Families. It is also very instructive to observe that after long years of

the most thorough study of their manuscripts, Wordsworth

and White refrain from constructing stemmata or genealogies

of these. All they venture to do is to distinguish certain

large classes or families, and within these again to bring

certain manuscripts into somewhat closer relationship with

each other. They distinguish two main classes. In the first

they reckon five, or it may be four, Italian-Northumbrian

manuscripts, A A H* S Y, two Canterbury O X, three

Italian JMP, the two mentioned already from Capua-Fulda

F and Lucullan-Echternach EP, and the Harleian Z, so called

from a former possessor and now in the British Museum.To the second class belong five Celtic D E L Q R, three

French B BF G, and two Spanish C T. After these comethe witnesses to the history of the text in the stricter sense of

the term, the recensions made by Theodulf (Hc 9) and Alcuin

(KV NT), and, for the form which the text assumed in the

later manuscripts and in the printed editions, the Salisbury

Codex W. We should have great reason to congratulate

ourselves, could we arrive at like certain results in the region

of the far older and more diversified history of the trans-

mission of the Greek text, but there too we shall encounter

the same general features—viz., a form of the text in the

printed editions, in the later manuscripts, in the Recensions,

the dates of which are still to be determined (Lucian,

Hesychius ?, Pamphilus), and in the families, which are only

to be classified in a general way.

It is also instructive to find that in the case of several

manuscripts, Wordsworth and White are obliged to observe

that they seem to have been corrected from the Greek, H*1 See, however, the two articles by Lake and Brightman, On the Italian Origin

of Codex Bezae in theJournal of Theological Studies, i. 441 ff


(p. 709), M (p. 711), EP» (p. 712), D R L (pp. 714. 7i6),

which suggests the possibility of Greek manuscripts also

having been influenced by one of the versions, be it Latin or

Syriac.

Finally, when we enquire as to the relationship between

Jerome and the Greek manuscript or manuscripts used by

him, we find that that manuscript must have been most

nearly related to the Sinaiticus, while it had no sort of con-

nection with Codex D. Whether this result tells in favour

of n or the reverse, we will not pronounce at present : Jerome

certainly avers that he made use of a Graecorum codicum

emendata conlatione .... sed veterum (p. 108), only veterum

is a comparative term, and it might quite well happen that to

Jerome that form of text appeared to be the best which was

most recent or most widely circulated in his neighbourhood,

and that he would have nothing to do with such a singular

form of text as D exhibits, even supposing he was acquainted

with it, a point we cannot decide. The intimate connection

in various passages between his text and that of the cursive

473 (2P*) 's remarkable, and especially the many points of

resemblance between the Irish manuscripts (D L R) and the

members of the Ferrar Group.

And this brings us back from our survey of the history of

the Latin text to that of the Greek, where we seem to have

got at least one fixed point to begin with in this perplexing

chaos, for that is the first impression we gain on glancing at

the mass of Greek manuscripts before us. But here again

our too sanguine hopes are likely to be disappointed, and weshall learn only too soon that even this is no Archimedean point

from which we are able to regulate this world of disorder.

If we find that in a certain number of manuscripts the Ferrar Group,

passage usually indicated as John vii. 53-viii. 1 1 occurs in

Luke, and in exactly the same place in each one—viz. after

Luke xxi. 38—we must needs conclude that the manuscripts

exhibiting this common peculiarity are intimately connected

with each other. This is the case with the cursives 13,69,M

i;8 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III.

1 24, 346, 624, 626. Whether the others that are reckoned in

this group have this same peculiarity, I am not perfectly sure.

Now one would naturally expect that these manuscripts

would also coincide in the other peculiarities characteristic of

Variation. this group. But on the contrary, they part company over the

very first and most conspicuous of these—viz. Matthew i. 16.

Here, unfortunately, 13 and 69 are defective, but we can com-

pare 124 and 346. And we find that whereas the former has

the usual text, the latter, with the support of 556, 624, 626,

exhibits in place of rov avSpa .... Xpitrror, the reading

already mentioned, w ^vi/arevdeia-a TrapOevos Maptap. eyevvn<rev

'Ina-ovv tov \ey6p.evov XpurroV. Which of these readings is

right, or whether both of them may not be wrong, we need

not enquire at present. It is sufficient to point out that one

and the same mother may give biith to very different children.

The specific difference will be inherited from the other of the

two parents, in this case represented by the copyist, and will

depend on whether he is painstaking, careless, violent, arbi-

trary, well-informed, or the reverse. But the mother herself

has a great number of hereditary or acquired peculiarities

which, the latter no less than the former, may be transmitted

to the children in a variety of ways. There is perhaps no

manuscript in existence which is entirely free from corrections,

while, on the other hand, there are many so overlaid with

corrections that the original writing is scarcely now recognis-

able. Codex B, on the whole, is in a very good state of

preservation, but it was supposed lately (see ThLz., 1899,

col. 176) that its first hand wrote in John viii. 57, "and

Abraham saw thee" instead of "and hast thou seen

Abraham," as all our editors read in that passage. 1 The

supposition proved to be incorrect, but if that could possibly

happen with B, what must have happened in the case of

manuscripts that are so full of corrections as n and D, if they

came to be copied in later times ? Suppose that one scribe

took the trouble to copy the text of the first hand, while

1 See below on John viii. 57, p. 289.

CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 1 79

another thought it his duty to follow the corrections, the

result would be two manuscripts whose common origin would

be scarcely recognisable. And in the course of centuries

how often may not this process have been repeated. No

wonder, therefore, that so few manuscripts have as yet been

clearly made out to be the descendants of our oldest codices,

so as to permit of their being removed from the board with

one sweep, as having no independent testimony to contribute,

as is the case with E8which is merely a bad copy of D,

(p. 77), or that scholars cannot agree as to the relationship

existing between two manuscripts like F8and G3 (p. 77).

1

Nor need we be surprised to find that some of our most

peculiar witnesses seem to have remained absolutely child-

less, while a less valuable race is perpetuated in many

copies. The words of Homer

—

olq irep <pv\\wv yeverj, toiij Si

tea) av&piav—may be applied conversely to the leaves to which

we entrust our immortality : habent sua fata libelli. The

only unfortunate thing is that we are so little able to follow

the course of these fates by means of external testimony.

When the Emperor Constantine e.g. asks Eusebius to External

supply him with fifty copies of the Scriptures at once, we

cannot but suppose that these became authoritative over a

large area. But in which of the classes into which our manu-

scripts have hitherto been divided are we to look for these

now? 8 And conversely if, in another locality, heathen per-

1 An instructive discussion of the relationship between D, and E, is given in

Hort's Introduction, §§ 335-337. It is possible that one copyist in Rom. xv.

31-33 took \va v Siaxoyla fiov i) «ir 'Upovaa\hn .... 5ii i*< AVj^aToj Qtav, and

the other wal h tvpofopla fiov v 4y 'Up .... Si} dtK-tmaros XpivTav 'lijcroD

—

i.e.

two entirely different recensions.

" Zahn very properly remarks (Th. Li/., 1899, 16, 179): "One must not, at

least as regards the N. T , confound Eusebius with Pamphilus, or, if I might say

so, with the firm of Pamphilus and Eusebius. If the fifty Bibles that Eusebius

provided at the bidding of the Emperor for the use of the churches of the capital

had contained a text of the N. T. prepared on the basis of the previous works and

commentaries of Orlgen, the entire subsequent history of the text of the N. T. in

the region of Constantinople, revealing as it does the extensive propagation of the

Antiochean text, would be perfectly incomprehensible. As in the matter of the

canon so also of the text of the N. T., Eusebius emancipated himself from the

testimony.

i8o GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III.CHAP. HI.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 181

secution was directed specially against the Bibles of the

Christians, this cannot have been without some effect. Accord-

ing to C. Hiilsen (Bilderaus der Geschichte dcs Kapitols, Rome,

1899), even the Roman Bishop Marcellinus, with his deacons

Strabo and Cassianus, in the year 304, burned, in front of the

temple of Juno Moneta, those Gospels which ten years later

were made the law of Christian Rome by the Emperor Con-

stantine. These scattered notices must be much more care-

fully collected and considered than hitherto, and combined with

the results obtained from the collation of the manuscripts.

Recensions. Most of our information with respect to the recensions of

the Bible comes from the Syrian Church, and is concerned

rather with the Old Testament than with the New ; but the

recensions of the former may throw some light on those of

the latter.

Lucian. (a) As the result of their researches, Westcott and Hort have

made it very probable, on internal grounds, that a recension

of an official nature was undertaken in Syria, perhaps at

Antioch, about the fourth century, and that to this recension

are due the origin and propagation of that form of the text

of the New Testament which was widely disseminated in the

Byzantine Empire, now represented in our,later minuscules, and

made the textus receptus by means of the first printed editions.

Lucian, the celebrated founder of the Antiochean school of

exegesis, suffered martyrdom in the year 311 or 312, most

probably the latter. Of all the names that we know, none has

a better claim than his to be associated with such a recension,

and the conjecture derives some support from the passage

of Jerome cited above (p. 85).1 It is, perhaps, even better

supported by what we know of Lucian's recension of the Old

Testament. In his preface to the Chronicles, Jerome wrote :

' Alexandria et Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat

school of Origen, and attached himself to that of Antioch, at least in this par-

ticular instance fraught with such important consequences for the history of the

Bible."1 See Hort, Introduction, §§ 1S8, 1S0

auctorem, Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris

exemplaria probat, mediae inter has provinciae Palaestinae

(v./. Palaestinos) codices legunt, quos ab Origene elaboratos

Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt ; totusque orbis hac inter

se trifaria varietate compugnat." Now it is true that the words

of a man like Jerome must not be pressed too far, and what

may have been true in his day might be quite different in a

comparatively short time—think e.g. of the fifty copies of the

Bible that Eusebius Pamphili had sent to Constantine, or the

Bible or Bibles sent by Athanasius to Constans 1—at the

same time it has been established beyond all doubt by Field

and Lagarde, that it is to Lucian we must refer a peculiar

recension of the Greek Old Testament preserved in a good

many manuscripts, the one found in the unfortunately small

remnant of the Gothic Old Testament and especially in the

numerous Biblical quotations of the famous theologian John

of Antioch, better known as Chrysostom of Constantinople,

who was a pupil of Lucian. The probability, therefore, is

very great that the same thing will hold good of the NewTestament portion of the Bible of Ulfilas and Chrysostom.

As regards the former, Kauffmann has expressed a decided

opinion to this effect in his work on the Gothic Bible cited

above (p. 139). The supposition would be converted into

something like certainty if it could be proved on palatographs

grounds that this or that New Testament manuscript belongs

to this or that Old Testament manuscript of Lucianic deriva-

tion as part of what was originally one and the same complete

Bible. This is a point which I am not in a position personally

to investigate, and I must therefore content myself with throw-

ing out this suggestion, and with adding in support of it that

we have the express testimony of the Menologies for saying

that Lucian bequeathed to his pupils a copy of the Old and

New Testaments written in three columns with his own hand.

1 Athanasius, writing to Constans, says in his first Apology : rf ii(\(py aov o\>*

typwfya >i fiovov Stc .... na\ 3tc nvnria tux 8tlwv ypaipb'y Kf\tvuavrot avrov

fiot KaratTKtuairai, raura iroiJiaas &ir«<TT«iAa.

182 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III.CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 183

There is a statement in the Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis,1

which seems, however, to refer only to the Old Testament

portion, to the effect that it was discovered in a concealed

cupboard (-Kvpyl&Kos) in the house of a Jew at Nicomedia in

the time of Constantine. Long ago Hug and Eichhorn attri-

buted the " Asiatic " or " Byzantine " recension to Lucian, and

no decided objection can be established to the view of Hort,

which Gregory also is inclined to accept (TiGr., p. 814).2

1 It is given in Syriac in AbW Martin's Introduction A la critique lextuelle

du N. T., Plate XX. No. 35 (1883), from the MS. de Paris, 27, f 88 b, and

also in Lagarde's Bibliotheca Syriaca, 259, 22-27. From the Greek wvpylaicos,

which becomes KpD-nB in the Semitic, the Syriac forms another diminutive

KJipo-ne, which is still omitted in the Thesaurus Syriacus, 3240 ; cf. Bar Bahlul,

1606, 9 (App. p. 64). In place of xvpylana, Oikonomos would read the genitive

wvpyicrKov {-wfpt ruv 6 tp^vtvTwv, iv. 500).a Not only does the Old Testament promise to shed some light upon an obscure

problem in the New, but the converse may also be true— viz. that the history of the

text of the New Testament may contribute to a better understanding of that of the

Old. It was long observed that many peculiarities of the Lucianic revision of the Sep-

tuagint occur also in the witnesses to the Old Latin version (see especially Driver,

Notes on Samuel, p. li ; Urt., 78). No proper explanation of this phenomenon

could be given so long as-the Old Latin version of the Old Testament was looked

upon as homogeneous and of great antiquity. But the New Testament, for which wehave far more Old Latin manuscripts than for the Old, shows that the Old Latin pre-

Jeromic version had a chequered history, and in particular that at a certain time a

revision was undertaken, the result of which is found especially in Codex Brixianus

(f, seep. 112), and which " non solum interpretationem veterem stilo elegantiori

emendabat, sed etiam lectiones novas protulit. Notatu certe dignum est, in ista

emendatione Itala eminere lectiones quae in maiori parte codicum Graecorum appa-

rent, quas Recensioni Syrac vel Antiochenae adiudicant Westcott et Hort." So say

Wordsworth and White, p. 654. If the same thing holds good of the Old Testa-

ment, then the relationship between the Old Latin and Lucian at once becomesevident, and the supposition is not so absurd that the marginal glosses of CodexLegionensis,* which are particularly striking on this view of the case, may have

been translated into Latin from Lucian. These considerations, moreover, maypossibly throw fresh light on the question that I have raised elsewhere (Urt,,

p. 78), whether Lucian may not also have used the Peshitto in his recension of the

Old Testament. I see that it has been taken up by J. Mentan, in his little book,entitled, La Version grecqtie des Limes de Samuel, prfciaUe d'uue Introduction surla critique textuelle (Paris, 1 898). On pp. 96-113 he discusses the same question

—

whether Lucian knew and used the Peshitto. He answers the question in the

affirmative: "It is therefore probable that as regards certain passages of the

Books of Samuel, in his work of revision, or rather of correction, Lucian did not

Called Codex Gothicus in Hasting!,' Bible Dictionary, iii. p. 50 £.

(6) It is, on the other hand, somewhat difficult to make out Hesychius.

how matters stand with regard to the recension of Hesychius.

Jerome commends it with that of Lucian for the Old Testa-

ment, but contemptuously rejects it for the New ;and accord-

ingly, in the decree of Pope Gelasius, we hear of Gospels " quae

falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha, evangelia quae falsavit Hesychius,

apocrypha " (c. vi. 14, 1 5). Considering the important position

of Alexandria and Egypt, and the vast number of manuscripts

referred with more or less certainty to that locality, it is the

more remarkable that so few unmistakable traces have as yet

been discovered of the recension of which " Alexandria et

Aegyptus .... Hesychium laudat auctorem," and that till

the present moment the most divergent views have been held

with regard to it. And this is true of the Old Testament no

less than of the New. One view, for which a good deal can

be said, has already been referred to (p. 61 f.)—viz. that we have

the recension of Hesychius in Codex B. Rahlfs, who was the Codex B.

first to connect B with the Canon of Athanasius, says (lid. cit.,

p. 78, note 7) ;" If we care to trust ourselves to pure hypothesis,

we might hazard the conjecture that our superb Codex, mani-

festly written for one of the principal churches of Egypt, was

prepared at the instigation of St. Athanasius himself. The

follow the Hebrew text as his sole and infallible guide/but availed himself of

others also, and that one of those principal authorities was the Syriac version."

We often enough find i 2vpc> cited as an authority in the Greek Commentaries on

the Old Testament Whether it is also mentioned for the New Testament is a

point that seems not yet to be looked into.

I may add that Bickel concludes his short article in the Zeitschrift fiir kalh.

Theol., iii. 467-469, entitled, " Die Lucianische Septuagintabearbeitung nachge-

wiesen," by saying :" In establishing the recensions of Lucian and Hesychius for

the Septuagint, we may be held as settling the question whether traces of these

may not also be found in the New Testament."

In his EinltUung, ii. 240, Zahn says :" Without a doubt many readings which

had a considerable circulation in the second and third centuries, some of them being

of no small importance and extent, were gradually ousted from their place in the

text from the fourth century onwards, and some of them dropped out of the later

tradition altogether. And it is equally true that many interpolations were current

in these later centuries which were unknown in the second. But whatever our

judgment be in doubtful cases, we are still always in a position to support it with

extant documents."

1 84 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. I8 S

locality in which the manuscript was produced supports this

conjecture, while the time is not inconsistent with it." I amnot aware if Rahlfs knew that Athanasius had executed wvKTia

twv Oelwv •ypcKpw for Constans, and I am not sufficiently

acquainted with the minutiae of the ecclesiastical history of

that time, and with the life of Athanasius in particular, to

hazard the assertion that Codex B was prepared by Athanasius

for the Emperor Constans. It is certainly the case, as every

Church History records, that Constans was Prefect of Illyricum

and Italy, and that Athanasius fled to Rome to Julius II.,

which would help to explain how Codex B comes to be in

that city.1 I cannot ascertain however from the books at

my command, whether any particular resemblance has beenobserved between the text of this manuscript and the Biblical

quotations found in those writings of Athanasius that belong

to this period of his life, that is, prior to the year 350. And,besides, one has always to take into consideration how verylittle reliance can be placed as yet on the text of the Biblical

quotations in our editions of the Fathers. In the Book of

Judges B certainly exhibits quite a peculiar form of text whichis not used by the earlier Egyptian teachers, Clement andOrigen, nor even by Didymus (d. 394 or 399), but was em-ployed first by Cyril of Alexandria, and which is the basis ofthe Sahidic version. This fact may have an important bearingon the question as to the text of the New Testament as well.2

As early as 1705 Grabe expressed the opinion that the Sahidicversion was the work of Hesychius, but we have very little

information indeed regarding that Church Father, and in

particular as to his connection with the lexicographer of that

name. Here also, the evidence afforded by palaeographywould need to be examined with a view to ascertaining

whether or not any of the manuscripts agreeing with B in the1 Rahlfs cannot, of course, assent to this supposition, seeing thai he regards

Codex B as depending on the Festal Letter containing the Canon of Athanasius,which was not written till the year 367.

2 See especially Lagarde, Sep/.-S/tidien, 1892, and Moore's Commentary onJudges, 1895, p. xlvi.

Book of Judges—viz. G (Brit. Mus., 20,002), 16, 30, 52, 53, 58,

63, 77, 85, 131, 144, 209, 236, 237, Catena Nicephori—has a

counterpart in some manuscript of the New Testament. On

Codex G see Rahlfs (p. 35, n. 2), and compare v. Dobschutz

(ThLz., 1899, 3, 74) on the two New Testament manuscripts Aand s66

evv- (Greg). 1 According to the latter, the difference

in size precludes the supposition that A and 566 are the NewTestament portion of the manuscript described by Rahlfs (Joe.

cit). But if they are not written by the same scribe, they both

undoubtedly come from the same school of copyists. At most,

however, A-566 would only possess importance for the recen-

sion of Hesychius if the text they, or rather it, follows were

different from that with which it was collated. Its subscription

shows that it belongs to those exemplars which were collated

with the Codex of Pamphilus. This fact has an important

bearing on the Gospel of the Hebrews. See Zahn, GK. ii. 648.

(c) We have nearly as little certain information regarding Eusebius-

the third, and perhaps most important, of the recensions*mp '

mentioned by Jerome in connection with the Old Testament,

that of Eusebius and Pamphilus, which goes back to Origen.*

So far as I know, the references which Origen makes in his Origen.

extant writings to his own labours in the field of textual

criticism, relate only to the Old Testament. At the same time

1 See above under A, p. 72.9 There is no need to discuss here the other expressions used by Jerome in

his letter of the year 403 to the Gothic priests Sunnia and Fretela, seeing that

these relate only to the Old Testament. But the words themselves may be

quoted: " Breviter admoneo ut sciatis, aliam esse editionem, quam Origenes et

Caesariensis Eusebius omnesque Graeciae tractatores kou^", id est communemappellant, atque vulgatam, et a plerisque nunc Aouitiarrfr dicitur, aliam septuaginta

interpretum quae in i^awXois codicibus reperitur, et a nobis in latinum sermonemfideliter versa est, et Jerosolymae atque in orientis ecclesiae (so Lagarde, LibrorumV. T. (an. pari prior, p. xiii. from Vallarsi, i 635 ?) decantatur .... «oif4

autem ista, hoc est communis, editio ipsa est quae et septuaginta, sed hoc interest

inter utramque quod kou^ pro locis et temporibus et pro voluntate scriptorum

vetus corrupta editio est, ea autem quae habetur in IJarXoTr et quam nos vertimus,

ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris incormpta et immaculata septuaginta interpretum

translatio reservatur " (ibid., 637). , For Aoi/Kiavifr Oikonomos (iv. 499) would read

AovKiart*.

1 86 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III.

his complaint as to the evil condition of the manuscripts of

his day refers to the New Testament, and to the Gospels in

particular. Nwi <5e SiiXovoti, he says, in his Commentary on

Mattheiv, Bk. xv. 14, ttoAX^ ytyovev 1} twv avTtypd<puJv Sia<j>opd,

elre airo pa.Qvp.laf tivwv ypa<f>ewi>, eiVe dtro roXyuijy tivwv (io\Qt]pd^

T17S SiopQwaeuig twv ypa<pop.evwv, eiTe Kat airo tuiv to eairoiV

Sokovvtu iv rg Siopddxret irpoa-TiOevrwv t) a<f>aipouvToov.1 He tells

us in the same place how, deou SiSovtos, he found ways and

means of remedying the evil by the employment of the critical

symbols of Homeric commentators, the obelus and asterisk,

Tt]V p.ev ovv iv TOiy avTiypa<f>oi<: tiJs TraAaiay Sta6t)Ki]s 8ia<f>u>viav,

6eov StSovros, fvpofiev laaaaQat. According to his own express

declaration, supposing it to have been correctly preserved,

for it is only extant in Latin, his work in textual criticism

at that time at least was confined to the Old Testament

:

in exemplaribus autem Novi Testamenti hoc ipsum meposse facere sine periculo non putavi. Von Gebhardt

consequently says (Urt., 25) that this statement from

Origen's own mouth should have kept anyone from ascrib-

ing a formal recension of the New Testament text to him,

alluding to Hug's system of recensions ; but at the same

time he will not deny that the works of Origen, who was a

man of conspicuous critical accuracy, are of the highest

importance for the criticism of the text of the New Testa-

ment. As a matter of fact, later church teachers appeal

chiefly to Origen's manuscripts of the Old Testament, but

several references are also found to his New Testament

manuscripts. On Gal. iii. 1, Jerome remarks (ii. 418):

legitur in quibusdam codicibus, Quis vos fascinavit noncredere veritati ? Sed hoc (meaning, of course, the last three

words only) quia in exemplaribus Adamantii non habetur,

omisimus. The words are a gloss interpolated from ch. v. 7,

but they are also found in Origen, though only in the Latin

1 A. D. Loman would emend this passage by reading tin Airi /loxtfipiai xiji

Siopdwotus ric ypaQopivwy tin na! Awi r6\fiijs tu>ui> tuv tA iavroU toKQwra(Leiden. Theol. Tijdschr., vii., 1873, 233).

CHAP. Ill] THEORY AND PRAXIS. I87

translation of Rufinus, and they appear, among our Greek

manuscripts, in C Dc E K L P, and likewise in most codices

of the Vulgate (see Wordsworth and White, p. 659). The

same writer says on Matthew xxiv. 36 (ii. 199): in

quibusdam latinis exemplaribus additum est "neque filius,"

quum in Graecis et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplari-

bus hoc non habeatur additum ; sed quia in nonnullis legitur,

disserendum videtur (W. and W., p. 658). Pierius is no

doubt the Presbyter of Alexandria who lived at Rome after

the Diocletian persecution. He was styled " the younger

Origen" on account of his learning, and was perhaps the

teacher of Pamphilus (Jerome, Viri III., 76 ; Eusebius, Eccl.

Hist., vik 32). Adamantius, like Chalkenteros, is a surname

of honour given to Origen. Here again, it is a strange fact

that the words which Jerome says were omitted in Origen's

exemplar are found in a certain passage of his works also

extant only in Latin, and there expounded so fully that

there cannot be the slightest doubt that he had them in his

text, and, moreover, had no conception of their omission in

other copies. What explanation, if any, can be given of this

fact we need not pause to enquire. Nor need we take up

the question where Jerome obtained access to the exemplars

of Pierius. I suppose it would be in Caesarea, where he also

saw the (Bible ?) volumes of Origen transcribed by Pamphilus

with his own hand, and actually obtained possession of his

copy of the commentary on the Minor Prophets. 1 Even

supposing that what is meant by exemplaria Adamantii is

not really a recension of the text of the Bible but simply

1 What he says is ( Viri Illust. , c. 75): Pamphilus presbyter, Eusebii Caesar-

iensis episcopi necessarius, Unto bibliothecae divinae amore flagravit, at maximampartem Origenis voluminum sua manu descripserit, quae usque hodie in Caesar-

iensi bibliotheca habetur. Sed et in duodecim prophetasvigintiquinqueV(>)74<ri«r

Origenis volumina manu eius (i.e. Pamphili) exarata repperi, quae tanto amplectoi

et servo gaudio, ut Croesi opes habere me credam. Si enira laetitia est unamepistulam habere martyris, quanto magis tot rnilia versuum, quae mihi videntur

suis sanguinis signasse vestigiis. The above is Richardson's text. Bernoulli

(Kruger's Sammlung, Heft xi. 1895) reads habentur, Sed in, and videtur, and also

omits volumina.

i88 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III.

the copy that Origen used most or used last, that copy

might have been authoritative for Pamphilus if not for

Eusebius, and so far, therefore, it becomes necessary for us

to try and discover the Origenic text in the New Testament

as well as in the Old. At all events a good many of our

manuscripts go. back to Pamphilus, and particularly H of

the Pauline Epistles. In addition to a very practical

suggestion as to the lending of books,1 and a notice of its

preparation and of the original writer, this manuscript has

also the following note: avr€^\r]Qti 6e 17 /8//3\oc irpoc to ev

Ka«o-a/oia avrlypafpov t>}? /3i/3\io0tikw tov ayiov Hafx<f>t\ou

X«p« yeypanpevov (avrov). From this subscription Field

(Hexapla, i. p. xcix) has concluded that the library of

Pamphilus was still in existence in the sixth century, but

it is doubtful whether the subscription may not have been

found in the original of H and copied into it along with the

text, as is the case with a similar note copied into the

Euthalius. minuscules 15, 83, 173. In any case this manuscript is our

principal witness for the recension of Pamphilus, or, as it

used to be called, the recension of Euthalius.2 I have no

intention of discussing the question whether it should be

Euthalius or Evagrius : Von Dobschiitz (Euthaliusstudien,

p. 152 n. 1) has promised to give us further particulars

1 llpoaiptttvriaii' icopuvts tlpt loynikrutv Btluy SiSdcrKoAor' &v mi /if xpfoys

at>Tt$ifS\ov \dfi0avt, ol ykp airooirat Hanoi' 'Ayrlo>paats' Brjaaupby «XW *' <*"« *y*v

/xariKuy ayaduy wal iracric aydpu-wots iroOrjibv apfioylais ti jcal votitlKats ypo.fifs.alt

KtKoafnjfieyov— vif t^jv a\i)Stiav—06 5aVw at wpo\tipus tipI oirt' at <t>9ovtaw rijt

u(ptKttas, xp4l<"» ! * T°'» 0U«f iyrif3ii3\oy Xafifiivoiv. The last seven words,

which are erased in H, are supplied by the minuscule 93P«»> and the Armenian

version. On avrlfafiKoy=" borrowing-receipt " or " voucher," see ThLz., 1895,

283, 407. See also Robinson, Euthaliana, Texts and Studies, iii. 3.

2 To the literature referred to on p. 79 should be added the second section of

Bousset's Textkritische Studien (TU. xi. 4, 1894), entitled, Der Codex Pamphili,

pp. 45-73. Bousset affirms the close connection between the Corrector of

Sinaiticus indicated by Tischendorf as c and Codex H. I have established the

connection of this corrector in the Psalter with Eusebius by means of the latter's

Commentary on the Psalms (see above, p. 58). As yet no one appears to have

examined the New Testament quotations in Eusebius. Cf. however Bousset,

Thl.z., 1900, 22, 611 flf.

CHAP. HI.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. I89

as to the Syriac texts relating to the subject. I would

merely call attention to two facts, viz.

—

(1) That the subscription testifying to a collation with the Harklean.

exemplar of Pamphilus is found also at the end of the Harklean

Syriac published by Bensly (see above, pp. 79, 106).

(2) That the name Evagrius, which Ehrhard proposes to Evagrius.

read in place of Euthalius in Codex H, is actually found

associated with the library of Pamphilus in another manuscript

of the Old Testament. I n his Notitia editionis codicis Bibliorutn

Sinaitici (Lipsiae, i860), pp. 73-122, Tischendorf published

" Ex Codicibus Insulae Patmi, Ineditum Diodori Siculi

;

Origenis Scholia in Proverbia Salomonis." The latter he took

from a manuscript which, according to H. O. Coxe's Report

.... on the Greek MSS. yet remaining in the Levant (1858,

p. 61), professed to contain "Origenis Hexapla cum Scholiis"

after the Philocalia. In reality they are Origen's Scholia on

the Proverbs which Angelo Mai had published in a different

form from the Vatican Catena 1802, in the Nova Patrutn

Bibliotheca, 1854. In the Patmos manuscript the scholia

-

proper are prefaced by two (or three) explanatory notes onthe use of the obelus and the asterisk, and on the different

arrangement of the chapters in the Hebrew and Greek texts,

followed by another explanation of the same sort under the

title Evayplov trxoXioi'.1 Who they are that are referred to in

the scholion as having collated the book (t£>v avTi/3e/3X^K6ra>v

to fiifiXioy) we learn from the subscription, which says

:

fiert\}j<pdri<Tav a<f>' 5>v tvpoficv e£air\5)v koi 7raA«i' avra xetp\ (leg:

avTO\eipi) Uafi<f>t\oc koi EiWjSioc SiopOuxravTO. This sub-scription, which Oikonomos published fully fifty years ago

1It runs : Btaly ta* wportTay/iiyoy tx°vai roy ipiSiiiy Sit; ta* '(Ipiytyijy

iwiytypafifiivov (x" tout? t$ povoavwdgif R- f t,rl Si MdWTa 4y t$ 'l40- ttra

Si irtpl Siaipuytas /)l)Tuy TiyHy Tuy iy t$ 4Sa</>ly tf ixUatiiy iariy a%6\ia, iwtp«al kiItu ytytvitvtay rtptta-nyfiivTfy *x» »>wt«t*wmVi)i', ray h.vTi0t0KrfKaTtiv to0i0\loy tarty- Sao. Si afi<pi06kat f{» xtlfitya fart, l(u vtytvxway ittpitartyixiytiy

*X«' TpoTtTa-rytfVqy, Sib. tA o\i\>a wpoatT^aay kot' airi to5 fityi\ov ( !pi,,JmSioaani\ov Ira nh S<i{p kcitA Ktyou to axi\loy t^pttrSm, iy ioxWj fiiy Ti, arT1 .

ypitptty ruy farSy ohttt ixiiruy, iy tout*. Si /xt> oDtbi Kfi/»Va>v t) fi-qt' fourajtpoiiivuv ical 01a tuCto wpoartSiyruy.


Later

revisers.

from that Patmos manuscript,1 should be added to those

usually cited—viz. those appended to Ezra and Esther in »,

to Isaiah and Ezekiel in Codex Marchalianus, to 3 and 4 Kings

in the Syriac Hexapla, and to Ezekiel in Codex Chisianus 88.

With what has been said the student should compare

what Von der Goltz tells us of a critical work upon the text

of the New Testament belonging partly to the tenth and

partly to the sixth century.2 This, too, goes back to Origen,

and in a scholion on James ii. 3, the greater part of which

is unfortunately erased, the work mentions "a manuscript

written by the hand of St. Eusebius." As Zahn elsewhere

shows, the writer of the Athos manuscript did not base his

own work on this Codex of Eusebius, and in one passage he

expressly contrasts it with the text of Origen which he follows.

In spite of this, however, this Athos manuscript must be taken

into account in dealing with the recension of Pamphilus. Still

more so must the Armenian and Syriac texts, according to

Conybeare and von Dobschutz.3 Even the Latin manuscripts

may contain traces of this recension. E. Riggenbach has

shown that the table of chapters in Hebrews given in Codex

Fuldensis and in a manuscript indicated as Cod. Vat. Reg. 9,

is nothing but a translation of the corresponding part of

" Euthalius." 4 Unfortunately the relics of the literary activity

of Pamphilus, that devoted student of the Scriptures,6 are

exceedingly scanty, and what little is left is extant only in a

Latin translation. In these circumstances the attempt to

specify more closely than hitherto his manuscripts of the Bible

by means of his quotations does seem rather hopeless.

(d) As we are now dealing with the question how to arrive

at the oldest form of the Greek text, it is unnecessary to take

1 nepi tw i ippirimvTwv, iv. 904. Athens, 1844-1849.

' Ttxte unci Unlersuchtmgen, xvii. (N.F. ii. ) 4. See above, p. 90.

» Euthaliusstudien, pp. III-I15 ; 115 ff.

4 Neue Jahrbucher fiir deutsche Theologie, ii. 3, 3 (1894), pp. 360-363. Com-

pare also von Dobschutz, lib. cit., III.

5 fiiKiiXTa ii »apa toiii KaB' iifias vivTas Sitirpiirt rp w(f>\ rk 6«Ta \6yla

yvjitriwrATTi irwDvtfl. Euseb., Eccl. Hist., viii. II.

THEORY AND PRAXIS. 191CHAP. III.]

account of the labours of any later individuals in the formation

of the Greek New Testament. Among these were Emperors

and Empresses like Constantine and Constans, who exerted

themselves in the dissemination of the Scriptures, and perhaps

even made copies of them with their own hands, but these

we may disregard. 1 The work of Andreas and Arethas on

the Apocalypse will be noticed when we come to speak of

that book. One naturally turns here to Krumbacher's

History of Byzantine Literature, but the index to the first

edition of that work contains only two references to the New

Testament, neither of them bearing on our present subject.

The matter is one which may be commended to those who

have the time and the opportunity and the willingness to

investigate it, and considering the ardour with which the

study of Byzantine antiquities is being prosecuted at present,

it may suffice merely to throw out this hint.

(e) So far as we have gone, therefore, it appears that much Pte-Origenic

uncertainty prevails regarding the text formations we have

already considered—those of Lucian, Hesychius, Pamphilus, .

and the Ferrar Group. Considering the amount of evidence

at our command—how the external testimony points in the

same direction as the manuscripts themselves, and, indeed, how

probable is the whole nature of the operation in question—one

would expect these to be the most easily distinguishable of

all. Indeed, even so cautious an enquirer as Zahn speaks

without any hesitation of " the official recensions originating

subsequent to the time of Origen" (ThLbl., 1899, 180).

The vagueness of our conclusions with respect to these re-

censions does not look very promising for the result of our

investigation of the text prior to the time of Origen, when

activity in this field was more disconnected and might be

said to run wild and unrestrained. And there is this further

1 See above, p. 87 ff., on Evan. 473, Act. 246, 419, Evl. 286, and compare Zahn,

TkLbl., 1899, 181 : Would that some one with the time and opportunity to work

in the Monasteries of Mount Athos applied himself to the Codex written in the

year 800 by the unhappy Empress Maria (Lambros 129, S. Pauli 2). Since

the above was written the manuscript has been collated by Von der Goltr.

192 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. HI.

difficulty that some of the writers who fall to be considered

in this period came in later times more or less justly under

the imputation of heresy, with the consequence that the

results of their labours were less widely disseminated, if not

deliberately suppressed. In circumstances like these any

attempted revision of the text must have been equally mis-

chievous, whether it proceeded from the orthodox side or

from the opposite. That there were Siopdooral who were

supposed to correct the text in the interests of orthodoxy

we have already learned from Epiphanius. Indeed, from our

point of view the action of the orthodox correctors must

be thought the more regrettable of the two, since the books

without a doubt parted at their hands with many vivid, strange,

and even fantastic traits of language. Even in the matter of

style it seems to me incontestable that it was at their hands

that the Gospels received that reserved and solemn tone which

we would not now willingly part with, and which can be

compared to nothing so much as to those solemn pictures of

Christ that we see painted on a golden background in

Byzantine churches. For myself, at least, I have not the

slightest doubt that the Gospel, and the Gospel particularly,

was originally narrated in a much more vivacious style. Just

consider this, for example. In all our present authorities

—

Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, Syriac, Egyptian, and so

forth, and in all the Church Fathers without exception, so

far as I am aware—we read the beautiful words: "your

Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask

Him," irpo tov vfias aiTtjcrai auTov (Matt. vi. 8). Compare with

this what we find singly and solely in Codex D and the Old

Latin h, irpo tov avoi^ai to trro/ua, antequam os aperiatis,

" before ever you open your mouth." To me it is a striking

indication to what an extent the instinctive sense of originality

is wanting, that a reading like this is not inserted by Westcott

and Hort among their Noteworthy Rejected Readings, nor

even cited by Baljon in his critical apparatus, and that our

commentators have not a single syllable about it, so that our

CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. '93

students and preachers know nothing whatever of this form

of the words of Jesus. If my edition of the New Testament

did no more than bring such things to the notice of those

who previously were unacquainted with them, I should

consider it had done no small service. But take another

illustration from the parable of the Barren Fig Tree. " Cut

it down, why cumbereth it the ground,"—that is how our

ordinary texts give the commandment of the justly indignant

husbandman in Luke xiii. 7 : esicoyfrov uvt>')v ivarl xai tijv ytjv

Karapyei. Here again, the great majority of our witnesses

of every sort exhibit no variation worth mentioning, except

that a good many (ALT etc.) insert a very prosy ovv

after the imperative, while B 80 read tov tottov for ri/v yijv.

And in the answer of the vine-dresser (verse 8), " till I shall

dig about it and dung it," there is again no various reading in

our ordinary witnesses of all kinds except the insignificant in-

terchange of(/3dX&)) Koirpia, Koirplav, and Kowpov. What a differ-

ence do we find here also in the text of D :" bring the axe,"

(pepe Ttjv a£ivnv, adfers securem ; and, " I will throw in a basket

of dung," fia\w Ko<f>ivov Kowpiwv, mittam qualum ( = squalum)stercoris d, or cophinum stercoris a b c f ff

2i 1 q, from which

it was taken into the Codex of Marmoutier, a copy of the

Alcuinian recension of the Vulgate written in gold. 1 Hereagain, our editors and commentators for the most part take

no notice. " Bring the axe " is omitted by Weiss, father andson, Westcott-Hort, Tregelles, and also by Baljon, while

Holtzmann ignores both variants. It stands to reason, of

course, that greater vivacity of style is not of itself an actual

proof of greater originality. But the whole question is raised

as to the principles by which we are to be guided in esti-

mating the comparative value of the witnesses. One mightbe inclined to regard such peculiarities as due to the caprice

On n&<pivov Kttxplwv, see Chase, Syro-Latin 7'ext, p. 135 f. It may beobserved in passing how variously «caTaf>7«i is rendered in the different Latinmanuscripts—\iz. by cvacuat in b fp lq, by delinet in ft

;'c

i r, by intrirat in e,

and by cecupat in d and the Vulgate.

N

194 GREER NEW TESTAMENT. [CIIA1'. III.

of some scribe by whom D or its parent manuscript was

written. As a matter of fact, Westcott and Hort, and most

recent editors with them, do so regard them, seeing they cite

the reading of D neither in Matt. vi. 8 nor in Luke xiii. 7. In

the latter passage one might be inclined to take that view of

the case, because as yet we have no other testimony to <pepe

i> u£'i»/i> than D d. But it is not so likely in the case of

Matt. vi. 8, seeing that here the testimony of D is supported

by that of h. To justify our neglect of these witnesses, we

should require to prove either that h is derived from D or Dfrom h.

1 So far as my knowledge goes, no one has yet

maintained the latter view. The derivation of h from D is

an impossibility, for this reason alone that h belongs either to

the fourth, or, what is perhaps more likely, to the fifth century

(see p. 1 13).2 The truth is, rather, that we have in h a second

and independent witness to the fact that at a very early date

the text of Matt. vi. 8 read, "before you open your mouth."

But it is quite impossible to ignore the evidence of D in Luke

xiii. 8 {ko<j>ivov Koirp'ucv). Here too, of course, one might take

exception and say that as D is bilingual, its Greek text might

be derived from the Latin. Fortunately, however, it happens

that the Latin of D, that is, d, differs from all the other eight

Latin witnesses in reading not cophinus but qualus, and it is

cophinus that is a loan word from the Greek'; so that this

objection, actually raised against D in the case of other read-

ings, does not apply to this one. There is this to be observed,

moreover—a point not given in Tischendorf, but noticed in

Westcott and Hort—viz., that Origen also seems to have read

"basket." The passage is again one that is extant only in

1 The evidence of il in this passage cannot tie had, unfortunately, as eight

leaves (a quaternio) containing the Greek of Matt. vi. 20-ix. 2, and the Latin of

vi. 8-viii. 27, have gone amissing.

- Unfortunately h exhibits only the text of Matthew, otherwise I might simply

have leferred to the list of variants on p. 120. I am not aware if what Words-

worth and White (vol. i. p. xxxii) say of this manuscript is still true : Codex hodie,

ut fertur, in bibliotheca Vaticana inveniri non potest.

3 Sec Index in Wordsworth and White, p. 75 1.

chap. 111] THEORY AND I'RAXIS. 195

the Latin translation of Rufinus, and Tischendorf cites Or.

3, 452 among the witnesses supporting Kowpia; but Westcott

and Hort expressly mention that Origen's context appears to

support the reading icocpivov (" Lev. lat. Ruf, 190, apparently

with context ")

Here, then, we have these three stages :

—

(1) D d alone, <f>epe -riji' ('i^'tvijv—i.e. one solitary Greek

manuscript.

(2) D supported by h, Uvoi$at to a-ro/xa—i.e. the samesolitary Greek manuscript with the addition of onerepresentative of a version.

(3) D supported by eight Latin manuscripts and Origen,

KOtpwov Koirplwf—i.e. the same solitary Greek manu-script with the addition of eight representatives

of one version and one not absolutely certain

quotation.

What then ? Can it be allowable to judge a reading's claimto be mentioned and considered from the number of thewitnesses supporting it, and like Westcott and Hort andBaljon to mention the third only, and take no notice of theother two? I think not. For just as in certain circum-stances the correct reading may no longer appear in anymanuscript, but must be determined by conjecture, so in

another case the truth may have only one solitary represen-tative left to support it against a whole world of adversaries(Heb. xii. 3), and this solitary witness either a manuscript, aversion, or a quotation. On the other hand, it may have' awhole cloud of witnesses accompanying it and supporting it.

In matters of this kind numbers have nothing to do with thecase whatever. To speak of majorities is nonsense. Thetrue man is willing and able to stand alone, and to manya witness of this sort we must apply the words of Socrates : afxtv a-wiJKa yeviaia- oinat Se kui it fii, cri/i^/crj. If we have beenable to verify the word of a witness once, several times,frequently, then we shall be willing to trust him even in cases'

196 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CIIAI'. III. CHAP. Ill]

THEORY AND PRAXIS. '97

where we cannot check his evidence. Of course we must

make allowance for human fallibility—quandoque bonus dor-

mitat Homerus ; least of all in matters of this kind must we

look for inerrancy. A manuscript whose testimony was

decisive on every point would be even a greater miracle than

a book printed without a single error at the time of the

Incunabula, which the printers of that age would have

regarded as an eighth wonder of the world. But how to

estimate the character of such a witness, seeing that the sub-

jective feeling, the instinctive perception of what is original,

is as little to be trusted as the number of the witnesses—that

is the difficulty. And what is the point that our discussion

has brought us to? From the "official recensions of the

text " made in the later centuries, we sought to get back to

similar works of earlier times, and we found that the original

text may have suffered as much at the hands of orthodox

revisers and correctors, who toned down and obscured the

fresh colouring of the ancient records, as at the hands of

heretics who inserted foreign and extraneous elements.1

Unfortunately very little definite information has come down

to us from those early times, and as that relates more to the

history of the canon than of the text, reference must be made

here to the monumental work of Zahn.2 Two figures, however,

1 At the same time it must be pointed out here that not only in Luke and Acts,

hut in all the books of the N. T., it is wrong in principle to present the alternative

11 original or later alteration " or even forgery. The dilemma can be wrongly

stated, lilass was not the first to express the opinion, " Lucam bis edidisse

Actus." De Dieu did so before him, and by an examination of those passages of

the Gospels in which the original text has been preserved in purely "Western"

witnesses Hort (§ 241) was led to suppose that the Western and non-Western

texts may have "started respectively from a first and a second edition of the

Gospels, both conceivably apostolic." Similarly Wordsworth and White are

unable to explain the origin and propagation of several readings in the manu-

scripts of the Vulgate otherwise than by supposing that the primitive document

itself contained certain variants (corrections) in the passages in question.

2 Geschickte des ncutcstamentlichcn A'atwns (Erlangen) : I. Band, Das N. T.

vor Origenes, I and 2 Halfte, 1888-89 ; II. Band, C/rtlinden mid Belege zurn

erstcn ttnd drilltn Band, 1890-92. It is to be hoped that the third volume

will not be long in making its appearance. Along with this we must take his

emerge from this chaos who have left their traces on the

history of the text as well, Tatlan and Marcion, the former

chiefly in connection with the Gospels, the latter with the

Pauline Epistles. Both have been already referred to more

than once in the chapter on the " Materials " (Tatian, p. 97 f.

;

Marcion, pp. 76, 87), and both will require careful considera-

tion here in our treatment of the principles involved in the

reconstruction of the text. How much would be achieved

could we but restore the original work of Tatian upon the

Gospels, or the Gospel and the Apostle of Marcion !

{f) Before speaking of their work, however, there are still a Heretics,

few less important notices to be gleaned from their own and

the preceding time.

Nearly all the heretics were in turn accused of falsifying the

Scriptures. In this sense, also, the Dutch proverb is true,

" jedere ketter heeft zijn letter " (every heretic has his letter,

his text of the Scriptures). In early times Justin charged the

Jews with such falsification in the Old Testament, and Lagardewas sometimes inclined to suspect that the Massoretic

numbers in Genesis had been manipulated by the opponents

of Christianity. Such complaints were most frequently madeagainst the Gnostics, particularly the Valentinians, and whenwe glance over the long lists of apocryphal and pseud-

epigraphical writings,1it is abundantly evident that at various

times there was a good deal of falsification

—

i.e., a good deal

written under false names. At the same time it cannot be

denied that alterations were also made on early Christian

works and the books of Scripture in the interests of dogma.These alterations are of all sorts, ranging from quite harm-less changes made in all innocence to supposed corrections,

Forschttngen zur Geschickte des netUestamentlichen Kanoiis mid der altkirchlichcn

Literatur, of which six volumes have been published (1881-1900). MeanwhileZahn's Einlcilung in das Nctu Testament (Leipzig, I., 1898 ; II., 1899, 2nd ed.,

1900) cannot be too strongly recommended. It contains a great deal of valuablematerial for the criticism of the text. Needless to say, textual criticism is the basison which all sound exegesis rests.

1 A small selection will be found in Preuschen, Analecta, pp. 152-157.

and, it may be, even wilful corruptions. 1 But most assuredly

the heretics are not alone in being chargeable with this

offence : Iliacos intra muros peccatur et extra.

As Julicher {Eitd., 378) points out, the orthodox Church

teachers were very fond of making this charge against the

heretics: TrapaX\d<T<reiv, irapaxapdcr<retv, pqSiovpyeiv, SiutpQeipeiv,

egcupeiv, a<j>ayt£ttv, KaropQovv (ironically), airoKoirreiv, irapcucoV-

Teii', wepiKoirTuv, /uLeraTtOevai, TrpocrTiOevat, interpolare, adul-

terare, violare, corrodere, dissecare, auferre, delere, emendare

(ironically), eradere, subvertere, extinguere, these are some

of the expressions we hear in this connection. Marcion gave

occasion to the reproach by his edition of the Gospel of Luke

and the Epistles of Paul, but against the rest of the Gnostics,

especially the Valentinians, against the Artemonites, Nova-

tians, Arians, and Donatists, and against the Nestorians, the

same accusation is made as was formerly brought against the

Jews. Even within the pale of the Church one party attri-

buted such practices to the other. Ambrosiaster, e.g., believed

that in the case of important discrepancies between the Greek

and Latin manuscripts, the variations were due to the

presumption of the Greek writers who had interpolated

spurious matter. Jerome was afraid this would be said of

him if he ventured to make the slightest alteration : quis

doctus pariter vel indoctus non statim erumpat in vocem,

me falsarium, me, damans, esse sacrilegum qui audeam aliquid

in veteribus libris addere, mutare, corrigere! The curse in

Apoc. xxii. 18 f. was also referred to the "falsifiers," who

thought it more convincing and more reverent to observe the

rules of grammar and logic than to abide by all the peculiar

expressions in the Scriptures. At a meeting of Cyprian

bishops, about the year 350, when one of them, in quoting

the verse John v. 8, substituted for KpaâTToi the better

Greek word a-Kifnrovt, another shouted to him in the hear-

ing of all the multitude, " Art thou better than he who said

1 Here again, unfortunately, we have no collection of notices referring to the

history of the text as distinguished from that of the canon.

CHAr. III.J THEORY AND PRAXIS. 199

Kpaârroi that thou art ashamed to use his words?" 1 Andit is a well-known fact that in the time of Augustine there

was very nearly an uproar in an African congregation over

Jonah's " gourd " (cucurbita) or Jonah's " ivy " (hedera). Afew references at least may be collected here :

—

(1) On a certain Sunday 2 in the year 170 or thereabouts,

Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, wrote a letter to the Church at Romethrough their Bishop Soter, of which Eusebius has preserved the

following among other passages (Eccl. Hist., iv. 23) :

—

'Ettio-toXos yap

a&f\<f>tav a£iia<T<i.VTUiV fit ypauVat !ypa>fiu. Km Tavras oi tov Sia/36Xov

ciTrdaroAoi 3 £i£av(u>v ytyifuxav, a fiiv cfaipoCires, d Si 7rpooTif?«TCS.

Ols to oval K€irat. 4 Oi 6dvpao-r6v apa,5 tl ko.1 t£>v Kvptanuiv

paSiovpyrjo-ai nvcs tVi/Jf'/JA.TjrTai ypatpuiv, 6it6t€ xal Tail oi Totavrai?

cirty3c/3ovAcu'xao~t. The Kvptaxat ypatpal are in all likelihood the

Gospels (the Syriac renders " the writings of our Lord "), but mayalso include the Pauline Epistles and the O.T. If we are to take

the words of Dionysius in their strict sense, it would appear that

these writings, like his own letters, had been corrupted by meansof "additions" and "omissions." The last sentence, if it is put

correctly, and if it has been faithfully transmitted, leads us to infer

that in his letter to Corinth Soter had expressed his surprise that the

writings of the Lord should have been falsified. To which Dionysius

replies that certain letters of his own had been falsified also, and that

it was therefore no wonder if they did the same to the writings of

the Lord, seeing they tampered also (or, even) with those that were

inferior to them. The simplest explanation of the words is, un-

doubtedly, that Dionysius sought to console himself over the fate that

'Julicher, he. cil., from Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., i. II. On the Latin formgrabattum, see W.-W., Index, p. 756, inclîroi/i occurs as early as Clem. Al.

facet., 1, 2, 6. In the parallels to Mark ii. 6, Matthew has xKiyti (ix. 6), andLuke kAivKiov (v. 24). Cf. the passage cited by Ligarde (De Novo Test., 20=Gcs. Abh., 118) from Lucian's PhilofscueUs, II ; 6 MUar airis ipimvos rbycTKiîroSa 4<p' ov Ikckûitto $x<t0 *'* bypbv k-wiwv.

2 Tr/r trfintpov ely Kvptatciiv iitiipav itrtydyofny, iv ?J aviyvwixtv i/fiuy ri,v

ixHTTQKty' ^y ilofHV iti wort ivaytyuffKovrts vovOirt IffBai, us xa\ ri^y wportpav7]fuy 81A K\flntVTOS ypatptiaav.

3Cf. Matt. xiii. 27, SouAoi tou oixotftnriiToi/, and also the superscriptions of the

N. T. Epistles, particularly those of Paul, where JoC\oj 'Ij|<roG Xpurrov is varied

by iwiaraKot '1. X.

' " is reserved "— Syr. » "but '—Syr.

200 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III.THEORY AND PRAXIS. 201

had befallen his letters, by reflecting that it was not surprising that they

had falsified his letters of less importance, seeing they had presumed

to do the same even to the writings of the Lord. On the first inter-

pretation, one would certainly expect Dionysius to use a stronger

expression to describe his feelings at the manipulation of the sacred

writings than the mere oi> Oavpaarov. Who are meant by tu<«?

One most naturally thinks of Marcion. According to a later account,

Soter, whom Jerome does not mention among the writers, composed

a book against the Montanists.

Anemonites. (3) In the last chapter of the Fifth Book of his Ecclesiastical

History (c. xxviii.), entitled Xltpi iw Trp> 'Apripuivos a'pto-iv e£apx»js

irpofitf3kT)p€Vv 0T01 TC tov rpoirov yiyovacri. Kai ojra>5 Tas dyi'as ypai/>as

&ia(f>Oiipai TtroXprjuao-iv, Eusebius quotes the following complaint from

an earlier source, entitled the Little Labyrinth ( ± 235) :—I>a<pas piv

6Was d(pd/3u)S pepaSiovpyrjica&iv, 7RoreaJS 8« dpxaias Kavova. ^flcTJ/icao-i,

Xpioroi' 8« rjyvo-qKaa-iv, ov Tt al 6tiai Xe'youca ypa<£al tjjTovvTK, but

occupying themselves with Logic, Geometry, Euclid, Aristotle,

Theophrastus, and Galen, Tats twv Artltmtv Tex>ais, t*jv a.ir\jjv rutv

Otituv ypatpiov ttuttiv KairrfXtvovTc: .... 81a toJto Tats Otiats ypa<£ais

dipd/Jujs eVt'/JaXop Taj %tipas, Xt'yoi'Tes ovtos Siu>p6u)Ktvai. Kai on

tuvto pi) Ka.Ta.il/iv86p.tvos airmv Xe'ycu, 6 fiovXoptvos SuVaTai paOriv. El

yap tis 0tXjJo-« o-uyKO/uVat airwv ixdo-Tov ri avTiypa<fia i(tTaitiv wpos

aAXjjXa, Kara jtoXv av tvpoi Sia<pu)vovvTa. 'Ao~vp<f>iDva youy «orai Ta

'AcrKXTprtdSou to« ©toSbYou. IIoXXSi' SI co-tip tinroprjo-aj. 01a to

^kXoti/xws cyyeypdcpoW tovs paOijras avriov to i<ft fKaorov avriov, us

airol KaXovQ-i KO.T uipd hipi v a. Tovrio-Ttv r)<pavio-p€va. ndXip 8e toutois

ra 'Epp.o<piXou oi 0"woS«. Ta yap 'AttoXXwci'Sou ov8t aiTa. tavrols coti

avpfpiDva- "Evetrri yap crvyxpivai Ta irpoTipov vir airu>v ' icaTao-Ktv-

ao-6'cVra tois varepov iraXiv imSiaoTpatpiio'i, ko\ tvp€iv Kara 7roXu

dira8on-a. "Ooip 8« ToXprjs icrri tovto to apaprr/pa, cwos /")8c ckciVou?

dyi/otti'. *H yap ou iriO"T€uouo-ip 'Ayiut IIptv/AaTi \c\i\uaL Ta? p«ia?

ypa^ms, Kai tiVif aVuTTor ij tauTovs ^yowiTai o-o<£(DT«poi/9 tov Aytou

Tlv€vpaTos inapxeiv, xal ri. Ircpov 7/ SatpovSxriv ; OiSf yap dpcijo-ao-tfai

Swairai iavruiv ttvai to ToXp-qpa, brroTav koa. Tfl a^ruii' X"P' H

ytypappiva, kox wap' &v Ka.Tt)\r)6r)o-av pr) Toiavras irapi\af3ov tos

ypatpaf kox 8tifat di'Ti'ypa<pa, oflcv auTa pfT€ypdiparTO, pr) f\ioo-i>.

"Evioi Si airuiv ov&i Trapayapa(ro~tiv j)(i'n>o-av aiTas, dXX' drrXuis

1 This reading is confirmed by the Syriac as against bit airoC read by

Christophorson and Savil.

CHAP. HI.]

apvrjcrdptvoi toV Te vopov icaX tovis irpoiprjTaf avopov k«u afftov Stoao--

KaVas jrpo<pdo-ti X"P'T0S > €'* to-xaTOf a7ru>X«'as o\tdpov KaTwXio-8rjO-av.

The passage is very instructive. We learn that copies of the

writings of these heretics were to be found in abundance, because

their disciples eagerly inserted their emendations in their texts,

" each one's emendations, as they style them, but in reality they are

corruptions," as the Syriac has it. At the same time, it is not quite

certain that KaTuipdmpiva really means corrected manuscripts of the

Bible, and not the heretics' own works

—

i.e., whether we should

Understand avriypatfia ru>y Otiwv ypaiftwy after Ta 'Ao-icXTpruiSoi;, Ta

©eoSdYou, to 'Ep/xo<^Aou, to 'AjtoXXwi'iSou and not rather ypa.ppa.Ta or

o-urrdy/iaTa. In the former case we shall have to search for a

Tecension of Asclepiades, of Theodotus, of Hermophilus, and in

the case of Apollonides for a double recension, an earlier and a

later. This interpretation of the words does certainly receive sup-

port from the positive way in which the historian argues from the

conduct of these heretics, that they either did not believe in any

inspiration of the holy Scriptures, or thought they could write better

themselves, and also from his remark that they did not receive tos

ypa<f>as in that form (Toiavras) from their (Christian) instructors, andwere not able to show any older copies from which their own were

transcribed. From the mention of the Law and the Prophets, wemay conclude that the reference is mainly to the O. T. Epiphanius

mentions the Theodotians as appealing to Deut. xviii. 15, Jer. xvii. 9,

Isa. liii. 3, Matt. xii. 31, Luke i. 35, John viii. 40, Acts ii. 22,

1 Tim. ii. 5 ; while Hippolytus argues against them on the groundthat in John i. 14, it is not to irvtvpa but 6 Xo'yos o-dp£ iyivtro. Nosure traces, however, can be discovered in any of these N. T.

passages of their supposed trenchant criticism of the text. Themost probable instance is Luke i. 35. " If we may trust the state-

ment of Epiphanius," says Harnack (Monarchianismus, PRE3, x. 1 88),

" Theodotus wished to separate the second half of the sentence fromthe first (810 »tai to yfwwpcvov Ik <rov ayiov kXjjStjo-ctoi, uios ©eou), 1 as

1 The passage is a conspicuous example of the importance of punctuation.Bengel punctuates S^iof, kAi)04"itiii vlhs e«oG, and Westcott and Hort Syior«Atl9VtTai, ulis Sfou. Weiss is accordingly not quite right in citing Bengelalong with Bleek and Hoffman as supporting the view of Tertullian (see Eengel's.

Gnomon). It will be difficult to prove that Tertullian's construction is impossible"on account of the position of «\i)04<r<Tai." Westcott and Hort surely knowGreek, and Tertullian knew it better than any of us.

202 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAF. III.

Marcosians.

if the words 816 ko.1 were wanting, which makes the sentence imply

that the divine Sonship of Christ rests on his approving himself.

But perhaps Theodotus omitted Sio Kal altogether, just as he seems

to have read irctv/ia Kvpiov instead of Trvtvfm ayiov, in order to obviate

all ambiguity/' The latter reading is not mentioned in Tischendorf,

and the remark of Epiphanius in my opinion amounts to this, that

whereas he understood Zyiov to be the subject of the sentence,

Theodotus made it the predicate and separated it from ytvv&mvov.*

(3) Speaking of the Marcosians,2 Irenfeus says (92):

—

"Evia Bi

Kal Tutv iv EuayyeAi'u) Kdfiivwv cis toJtov tov x,apaKTrjpa f-(0apfu>^ovaiv

.... dAAa. <tai iv ru tiprjKevai • iroAAaias iirtdv/irjo-a Akoxxtcli iva tSiv

Adyiuv Kal ovk (<r)(OV tov ipovvTa, ip.<j>aivovr6s <pa<ri Sdv Ola tov «vos tov

1It seems worth while to quote here Harnack's words on these notices of the

earliest attempts at textual criticism. He says (Hid., p. 189) : "The charge pre-

ferred against the disciples of that erudite Tanner (Theodotus) by the author of

the Little Labyrinth is threefold. He complains of their formal and grammatical

exegesis of Scripture, of their arbitrary system of textual criticism, and of the

extent to which they were engrossed in Logic, Mathematics, and empirical Science.

At the first glance, therefore, it would appear that these people had no interest

to spare for Theology. But the very opposite is the case. The complainant

himself has to confess that they employed the method of grammatical exegesis

' with the object of establishing their godless conclusions,' and textual criticism

in order to correct the manuscripts of the holy Scriptures. In place of the

allegorical method of exposition, the grammatical is the only right one, and we

have here an attempt to discover a text more nearly resembling the original .

instead of simply accepting the traditional form. How inimitable and charming

really are these notices I . . . . These scholars had to be generals without an

army, because their grammar and textual criticism and logic might only discredit

in the eyes of the churches that christological method which long tradition had

invested with admiration and respect. ... As ' genuine ' scholars—this is an

exceedingly characteristic description that is given of them—they also took a

jealous care that none of them lost the credit of his conjectures and emendations.

No remnants have been preserved of the works of these the first scholarly exegetes

of the Christian Church (the Syntagma knows of the existence of such ; <f. Epiph.

Iv. c. 1)." So writes Harnack. Nothing, however, is said in the text of Eusebius

of a jealous watch over the priority of the conjectures. In the sentence which

Harnack renders " for their disciples have with an ambitious zeal recorded what

each one has corrected as they call it, that is corrupted (deleted ?)," ^iAotI^wj

iyytypiipBai is to be understood simply of a diligent record of "corrections"

undertaken solely out of an interest in their contents. According to the Syriac

i/fanr/tliia is not to be rendered by "deleted," but as Harnack translates it: cf.

the various Syriac versions in Matthew vi. verse 16 (SyrP), verses 19 and JO (SyiP°).

On the validity of the charge of inventing false Scriptures, see Zahn, GK. I, 296 f.

2 Westcott. Canon, Pt. I. c. iv. § 8, p. 308 ff.


ak-qOHi Zva ©edV. This seems to contain a reference to Matt. xiii. 17,

but what is complained of is a false interpretation of the words of

Scripture rather than an actual alteration of the text itself. 1 The still

earlier passage, Polycarp vii. 1, is also to be taken as referring to this

practice, 8s av fi<8o&tv)j to. Adyta tov Kvpiov irpos Tas (Si'as iiriOvfuas

Kal Aeyj; p-yrt avao-Taaw f-^Tt uplo-w [etvai], ovtos jrpojTOTOKOS io-ri tov

Sarava. For the exposition of the passage see Zahn, GK. i. 842.

(4) That Basilides 2 altered the text of the Gospels as received by Basilides

the Church in accordance with his own religious and ethical views,

and incorporated them in their altered form in his Evangtlium, is

shown by Zahn on Matt. xix. 10-12 (GK. i. 771). He shows also

that the form into which Basilides cast the Synoptic narrative may have

prepared the way for the belief that Simon the Cyrenian was crucified

instead of Jesus, if this was really his doctrine.

(5) Hippolytus says of Noetus (Lagarde's edition, 45, 19) : oirdrai' Noetus

yap #<Ar;(Tii)o-ii' -rravovpyfvtudai, irtpiKOTTTOVO-l Tas ypatpdf. He means

by this, according to Zahn, that the Noetians garbled their quota-

tions, and made selections of Scriptural sayings without paying

regard to the context. But compare ibid., line 7 ff., al fiiv yap ypatftal

6p6uK Kiyovo-iv, ciAAa av Kal Not/tos vofj- ovk rJSt; Si ci Ndip-os /"j vofi,

Trapa. touto ck/SA^toi al ypadW-

(6) Heracleon, 3 the Valentinian, is said to have read irivri instead Valen-

of i£ in John ii. 20, but whether he made the alteration himself orllnlans

found the former reading in his exemplar is not clearly made out.

There is no notice of the variant in Tischendorf, Baljon, or in our com-mentaries. It is mentioned by Scrivener, Introd., ii. 260, n. 3, where

reference is made to Lightfoot's Colossians, p. 336, n. 1. Origen,

commenting on John i. 28, cites Heracleon in support of the reading" Bethany," which, he says, " is found in almost all the manuscripts."

In contrast to the Marcionites and their practice of mutilating the

Scriptures, Irenaeus says of the Valentinians (iii. 12, 12): scripturas

quidem confitentur, interpretationes vero convertunt, quemadmodumostendimus in primo libro. There we read (i. 3, 6) : ko.1 ot iwvov Utoiv (uuyy<AiK<D>< Kal Tu>v a7ro<7ToAiitaiv TrtipCivrai ras a7roSct£ct; irouio~9ai

irapaTpiirovTK Tas lpjir)\i!a<; ical pa.SiovpyovvT€S Tas «f7ry>jo-eis, ciAAa Kal

tK v6p.ov Kal wpo^rrruiv. But in i. 11,9 he says of them : Illi vero qui

sunt a Valentino .... suas conscriptiones proferentes, plura habere1 Westcott, Canon, Pt. I. c. iv. p. 31a a Ibid., p. 291.3 Ibid., p. 303 ff. Cf. Texts and Studies, vol. i. 4 : The Fragments of Heracleon,

by A. E. Brooke, M.A.

Gnostics.

gloriantur quam sint ipsa evangelia, siquidem in tantum processerunt

audaciae, uti quod ab his non olini sci iptum est, " veritatis evange-

lium " titulent, in nihilo conveniens apostolorum evangeliis, ut nee

evangelium sit apud eos sine blasphemia. For the continuation and

discussion of the passage, see Zahn, GK. ii. 748. See also

Westcott, Canon, p. 298 ff.

Zahn (GK. ii. 755) endeavours to show that they corrected the text

of the manuscripts, by the omission of \mip avrdv, e.g., in 1 Cor.

xv. 29, and the insertion of OtoT-qrv; in Col. i. 16.

In 1. 8, i, IrenEeus accuses them of e'£ aypd<f>u>v avayivuio-KovrfS ko.1

to &r] Acyd/j.ei'ov i$ ap.pov o~\oivta irAeVcis cttitticWoi'Tcs. The proverb

is from Ahikar.

The well-known charge made by Celsus (Orig. con. Ce/s., 2, 27 ;

Koetschau, i. 156) and the answer of Origen refer partly to the

re-writing of manuscripts and partly to their alteration : Mcto ravrd

rival Tail' 7rio-TcuoVT<i)i' <pr)<rli> (Celsus) is tV p-idrfS T/Koiras ti's to

€<f>€arrdvai avrots /iiraâpaTTftv Ik ttJs ttooittjs y/xi^T/s to tvayytkiov

TP lXV K<" TfTPaXV KaL noâXV' *"' «Xouv ""P05 Toiis f'Xcyj£ous dpvi\o-6at.

McTaâpaâj'Tas ot to tuayyeAiov dAAovs ovk oTSa 77 Tovs diro MapKia)vos

Kal tous diro OvaXivrivov olfiai 8i kol toiis dwo AovKidvov. Tovro Of

Xtyopfvov ov rov Adyov (o~rlv fyKKtjpa. aAAa Tuiv ToA^ô"avTa»'

paSiovpyrjo-at ra tiayyt'Aia. Kal uio-irtp ov <£iAoo-oaSi'as lyK.\i)p£ fio~iv

oi o-o^tiora\ 17 01 'EiriKOvpeioi t) 01 IIcpnraT^TtKOt rj oiTik«s ttot av waiv

ol \pcvo\>&o£ovvTts, ovrwi oi tov aXrjOivov \pto~Tiayto-fWv €yKXrj/ia 01

p.traâpdrrovrf'i ra euayyeAta Kat atpeVcis ^tyas c7rciO"dyoiT€S to*

/JouArJ/xaTi T77S 'I^ffoO SiSacrKaAias.

(7) Clement (Strom., iii. 39) complains that the Gnostics corrupted

the sense of the Scriptures both by arbitrarily misplacing the emphasis

(in oral delivery) and by altering the punctuation (in copying manu-

scripts ?) ; see Zahn, GK. i. 424. On Tertullian's complaint as to the

way in which Marcion construed Luke xx. 35, see below, p. 276.

(8) Clement (Strom., iv. 41) quotes Matt. v. ion, to which he

annexes the reason found in verse f)b, and then goes on to say, 7} <Js

Ttfts tu>v pfrariOivruiv to euayye'Ata, Maxdpiot, <pT)0-iv, ol Stoiiuy/iO'Oi vrrc/J

rrjs SiKaioowris, oti aiTol to-oPTm TeAtioi. Zahn (GK. i. p. 4 1 ') makes

the surmise that when Clement spoke of certain persons who " trans-

posed " or altered the Gospels

—

i.e., took liberties with the text, he

may have been thinking of Tatian, whose personal intercourse he

may have enjoyed for a length of time, and with whose Greek writings

he shows himself to be familiar.


(9) In an Arabic Introduction to a collection of alleged Nicene Simon Magus

Canons particular stress is laid upon the falsification of the ScripturesMarcionites

by heretics. The Emperor Constantine is represented as addressing

the Fathers at Nicrea, and enjoining them, in dealing with heretics,

to distinguish between those who reject and falsify the holy Scriptures

and those who merely interpret them falsely. The arch-heretic SimonMagus already appears as a fabricator of spurious Scripture. His sect

possessed an Evangelium in four books, to which they gave the title

"Liber quatuor angulorum et cardinum mundi." The Phocalites

(Kukiani) retained the Old Testament, but in place of the Church's

New Testament they had one manufactured by themselves, in which

the twelve Apostles bore barbaric names. It is said of the Marcion-

ites : Sacras scripturas quibusdam in locis commutarunt addideruntque

Evangelio et Epistolis Pauli apostoli quibusdam in locis, quaedamvero loca mutilarunt. Apostolorum Actus e medio omnino sustu-

lerunt, alium substituentes Actorum librum, qui faveret opinionibus

ac dogmatibus, illumque nuncuparunt "Librum propositi finis."

See Zahn, GK. ii. 448, where reference is made to Mansi, Cone. Coll.,

ii. (Flor., 1759), 947-1082; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, 2nd. ed.,

i. 361-368, 282 f. ; Harnack, Der Ketzer-Katalog des Bischofs Manilavon Maipherkat, TU. (New Series), iv., 1899; ThLz., 1899, 2.

(10) Ambrose says on John iii. 6 (De Spiritu, iii. 10) : Quern Arians.

locum ita expresse, Ariani, testificamini esse de Spiritu, ut eum devestris codicibus auferatis. Atque utinam de vestris et non etiam deEcclesiae codicibus tolleretis. Eo enim tempore quo impiae infideli-

tatis Auxentius Mediolanensem Ecclesiam armis exercituque occupa-verat, vel a Valente atque Ursatis nutantibus sacerdotibus suis

incursabatur Ecclesia Sirmiensis, falsum hoc et sacrilegium vestrumin Ecclesiasticis codicibus deprehensum est. Et fortasse hoc etiamin oriente fecistis.

(11) Ambrosiaster has the following note on Rom. v. 14 (Migne, Greeks,

xvii. 100 f.):Et tamen sic (i.e. prj dpaprô-avra) praescribitur nobis

de graecis codicibus, quasi non ipsi ab invicem discrepent, quod facitstudium contentionis. Quia enim propria quis auctoritate uti nonpotest ad victoriam, verba legis adulterat, ut sensum suis quasi verbalegis asserat, ut non ratio sed auctoritas praescribere videatur. Con-stat autem porro olim quosdam latinos de veteribus graecis translatos(esse) codicibus, quos incorruptos simplicitas temporum servavit etprobat

:postquam autem a concordia animis discedentibus et haere-

ticis perturbantibus torqueri quaestionibus coeperunt, multa immutata

206 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [chap. in.

Marcion.

sunt ad sensuni humanum, ut hoc contineretur in litteris quod homini

videretur, unde etiam ipsi Graeci diversos codices habent. Hoc autem

verum arbitror, quando et ratio et historia et auctoritas observatur

:

nam hodie quae in latinis reprehenduntur codicibus, sic inveniuntur

a veteribus posita, Tertulliano, Victorino, et Cypriano. The correc-

tion "hodie quae" for "hodieque" in the last sentence is due to

Haussleiter, Forschungen, iv. 32. The passage is also interesting as

being the earliest instance known to me of the collocation of ratio

and auctoritas as the two arbiters in theological disputes. Com-

pare the frequent combination of the two by Luther in his earlier

polemics — e.g. against Prierias, and also later in his protest at

Worms.

Again, Ambrosiaster says on Gal. ii. r, with reference to Acts

xv. 20, 29 : Quae sophistae Graecorum non intelligentes, scientes tamen

a sanguine abstinendum adulterant scripturam, quartum mandatum

addentes "et a suffocatis observandum," quod puto nee ne Dei nutu

intellecturi sunt, quia iam supra dictum est, quod addiderunt.

(g) Marcion.—We have more exact information in regard

to Marcion's great undertaking than to these slender attempts

at textual criticism. Here there is a fuller stream of testi-

mony both in the Greek and Latin Fathers. It must be

confessed, however, that hitherto attention has been directed

more to his position in the matter of the Canon generally

than to his work on the text of the New Testament. Here

again, the works of Zahn throw most light upon the subject

;

in other works, like the PRE e.g., this side of Marcion's

activity is very superficially treated. Several points have

already been referred to here and there in the previous part

of this work, but the question must now be treated as a

whole. 1

1 On the literature of the subject, </. Zahn, GK. i. 585-718, Das N. T.

Marriotts ; ii. 409-529, Marriotts N. T. All other works are superseded by

this, but mention may still be made of A. Hahn, Das Evangclittm Marriotts in

seiner urspriinglichen Gestalt ( 1 823) ; Thilo, Codex Apocryphus Nei'i Testamenti

(1832 : for this work Hahn attempted to restore the text of Marcion, pp. 401-486)

;

A. Kitsch), Das Evangelitiin Marriotts mid das kanonische Evangelittm des Lucas

(1846); Hilgenfeld, in the Z.f. hist. Theol., 1855, pp. 426-484; Sanday, The

Gospels in the Second Century , c. viii.


In the opening sentence of his examination of Marcion's

New Testament, Zahn avers that no church teacher of the

second century occupies such an important position in the

history of the ecclesiastical canon as does that early writer.

If this is really so, it becomes all the more important for us to

inquire whether traces of his influence may not be discover-

able also in our witnesses to the text of the New Testament.

Marcion's New Testament, which was at the same time his His New

entire Bible, consisted of two books of moderate compass

—

viz. a Gospel-Book, which he seems to have called EvayyeXtov

simply, and a collection of ten Pauline Epistles called, prob-

ably by himself, to 'Attoo-toXikov (sc. f}i/3\lov). The Epistles

were arranged in an order which was evidently thought to

correspond to that of their composition—viz., Gal., I and 2

Cor., Rom., 1 and 2 Thess., Laodicenos ( = Ephes.), Col., Phil.,

Phm. He was unanimously accused by the Church teachers

of having mutilated the ecclesiastical Bible in the manufac-

ture of his own, and also of having corrupted the text here

and there by means of interpolations, particularly in the case

of Luke, which was the only Gospel he admitted. They com-

plained that he used not the pen but the knife (only he used it

for a purpose the opposite of that for which the scissors are

employed nowadays), and the sponge, and also that he deleted

not words merely but whole pages. They compared his workupon the manuscripts to that of a mouse.1 And as for his

disciples I Every day they were improving their Gospel.

Seeing that he himself had not gone so far as to erase the

writings of Paul altogether, his disciples continued his work,

and removed whatever did not concur with their views.2

1 The proof passages will be found in Zahn, GK. i. 620, 626, 663 : machaera nonstilo : erubescat spongia Marcionis (Teit., v. 4, p. 282. Is it permissible to infer

from this that minium was already used in manuscripts of the Bible at that time?—cf. Augustine, Con. Jul., iii. 13: ipsum libri tui argumentum erubescendo con-

vertatur in minium) : non miror si syllabas subtrahit, quum paginas totas plerumquesubducet. Quis tam comesor mus Ponticus quam qui evangelia corrosit (con. Marc.i. 1) : tuum apostoli codicem licet sit undique circumrosus (Adamantius).

2 See the passage from Tertullian (cotidie reformant illud (sc. evangelium),prout a nobis cotidie revincuntur), and from Adamantius (Psettdo-Origenes, dela Rue, i. 887 = Lat. in Caspari Anecdota, i. 57) in Zahn, GK. 1 613.

208 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 209

But according to testimony extending over a long stretch

of time, their text of the Scriptures seems to have under-

gone fewer alterations during that period than that of

the Catholic Church (Zahn, GK. i. 613). In comparing

the text of these two collections " it should be clearly

understood that the Church's text, whose treatment by

Marcion is in question, is not to be identified with that

of our Bible Societies, or of Tischendorf, or of Epiphanius,

but was such a text as Marcion found in the Catholic Church

or in the Roman community about the year 1 50. The text

of the ecclesiastical exemplar on which Marcion based his

labours can no longer be restored in every word, but sufficient

means are at our command to give us a general idea of the

form which the text of the Pauline Epistles presented in the

second century, and at the same time to ascertain in many

separate instances what text Marcion had before him. It turns

out in many cases that what seems strange in Marcion's text

to one who compares it with the textus receptus, or with one of

our modern critical editions, without knowing much about the

history of the text, is by no means peculiar to Marcion, but

was pretty common in the West in early times. Now it is

quite inconceivable, in view of the implacable hostility of the

Church to Marcion, that his text, condemned as it was unceas-

ingly as being heretical and spurious, should have exerted any

positive influence on that of the Church.1 It follows, accord-

ingly, that all those things in Marcion's Bible that seem to

the uninitiated to be peculiar to it alone, but which are

attested by Catholic manuscripts, versions, and Patristic

writers, were not invented by Marcion, but taken by him from

the Church's Bible of that time, or from one such Bible at all

events, and were only gradually ousted from the text used by

the Church." 2 All this, which is taken word for word, with

1Cf. also GK. p. 681.

''

Cf. Westcott, Canon, Pt. I. c. iv. §9, Marcion: " Some of the omissions can

be explained at once by his peculiar doctrines, but others are unlike arbitrary

corrections, and must be considered as various readings of the greatest interest,

the exception of a slight change in the last sentence, from

Zahn's dissertation of the year 1889 (p. 636), should even at

that time have been self-evident, but, like Zahn's further

statements in the same place, has not yet been sufficiently

attended to, especially in our commentaries on Luke and

the Pauline Epistles. He points out, eg., that Tertullian, in

speaking of the change of the address "ad Ephesios" to

" Laodicenos," credits Marcion with the intention of being " et

in isto diligentissimus explorator," so that it is possible that he

compared several manuscripts in order to discover the original

wording. 1 In such cases, therefore, the question may be asked

whether Marcion may not really have preserved the original

text, and whether his text, so far as it is corroborated by any

independent tradition, should not be estimated much higher

than it is by the textual critics of the present.2 Zahn deserves

all the more credit for giving such careful attention to ques-

tions relating to the text, seeing that the subject of his inves-

tigation was merely the history of the canon. He has dealt

chiefly with those passages in which Marcion's intentional

alterations have been preserved. Reference may be made,

e.g., to the pages in the first volume of his History, entitled

Minor Emendations, wherein it is shown how Marcion, in his His

hostility to the Old Testament with its God of Righteousness,tf n™

nda '

omitted the quotations from the Old Testament altogether, or

dropped the introductory formula of quotation in Rom. L 17,

xii. 19, 2 Cor. iv. 13 ; excluded all the references to Abraham

dating as they do to a time anterior to all other authorities in our possession

"

(p. 315). See also note at the end of the paragraph, where certain readings

peculiar to Marcion are cited.

1Cf. also ibid., p. 684, and see below, p. 313.

'

' Cf. also ibid., p. 682 :" I repeat that readings which are proved to be earlier

than Maicion by their simultaneous occurrence in his text and that of the several

Catholic witnesses deserve greater consideration both in the Gospels and Epistles

than has generally been accorded them. It is much more important to ascertain

whether a certain reading has the support of Marcion than to observe that it

occurs in this or that uncial manuscript. In spite of this, however, the critical

notes in our commentaries hardly ever refer to Marcion, not to speak of their

doing so systematically."

O

2IO GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

Marcionand the

WesternText.

[CHAP. III.

in Galatians except in iv. 22 ; altered ar/voouvre^ t^c too Oeou

SiKaioa-vvnv in Rom. x. 3 to wyvoouvres -roe 6eov ;removed the

words yevofxevov en ywaiKus, yevofitvov viro vo^iov from Gal.

iv. 4; changed the active construction into the passive in

1 Cor. iii. 17 ; and elsewhere strove after greater condensation,

lucidity, and brevity of expression. Marcion, says Zahn, had

good grounds for believing that the text of the Scriptures

had not remained unchanged during the century that had

elapsed since their composition, though that might be said with

more truth of the Gospels and the Acts than of the Epistles

;

but to attempt to rid the Apostle's text of all supposed cor-

ruptions with no regard to any sort of critical material what-

ever, but depending simply and solely on his own instinctive

sense of what was genuinely Christian and apostolic, was the

undertaking of a giant, as Irenaeus calls Marcion. And his

disciples, in a blind veneration of his authority, seem to have

exceeded the intention of the master and editor, "just as

many Lutherans at the present day look upon Luther's trans-

lation, with all its faults, as the very word of God, and hardly

capable of improvement."

In the Appendices to his second volume Zahn has gone

still more carefully into the questions relating to the criticism

of the text. 1 His main conclusions will hardly be contested.

Among these are the following :

—

1. That Marcion based his Gospel on that of Luke, although

his text displays various elements belonging to Matthew and

Mark

;

2. That this mixture is found in those passages wherein the

ecclesiastical texts, and especially the Western, exhibit the

same or similar features;

3. That Marcion's text shows 2 none of those small " apoc-

ryphal additions" which we find combined with the contents

of our Gospels in Justin and Tatian.

1 Pp. 409-449, on the criticism of the sources ; pp. 449-529, the restoration of

the text. On p. 449 f. he gives his verdict on the earlier works of Hilgenfeld,

Volkmar, and van Manen in this direction.: Zahn interjects " as yet."


Zahn also calls attention frequently to the different manu-

scripts which still exhibit a text agreeing with that credited

to Marcion, and which are precisely the Western witnesses,

the Old Latin manuscripts, and D of the Greek. 1 Compare,

^..onLukev. 14, 34,39; vi. 25 f, 31,37 ; viii.45; ix. 6, 16, 22;

x. 22, 25 ; xi. 20, 41 ; xii. 14, 31, 58 f.; xviii. 35 ; xx. 36;

xxi. 27, 30 ; xxiv. 6, 26, 37. But there are also passages where

Marcion parts company with D and its associates

—

e.g., vi. 22,

26, 29 ; xi. 4. In Paul, too, the number of passages display-

ing agreement between Marcion and D2G

2preponderates

:

Gal. ii. 5; iii. \\b; v. 1, 14, 24; 1 Cor. i. 18 ; 2 Cor. v. 4;1 Thess. iv. 16; Eph. i 9, 13; iii. 10; iv. 6; v. 28 ff. Theagreement between Marcion's text and that of the minuscule

157 was previously emphasised by Zahn

—

e.g., in Lukexvi. 12,

where the reading to tfiov instead of to ii/xerepov {finerepov B L)is supported as yet by this Greek manuscript alone and three

old Latin (eil), and in. xxi. 30, where only one other of the

minuscules collated by Scrivener supports D 157 in reading

Trpo/8aX<oo-ji/ tov Kapirov avruiv? In Luke xxiv. 26, D andMarcion are our only witnesses for the reading Sri instead of

otlxi'. How is this to be explained ? Zahn, e.g., holds that it is

a mere coincidence that Marcion's reading, " prophetas suos," 3

in 1 Thess. ii. 15 agrees with tovs ISlovs -n-po^Tac read byD2 E2

K2L

2 , i.e., the representatives of the Antiochean recen-

sion, with which Marcion elsewhere very seldom agrees, seeing

he founds throughout upon a Western text In the great

majority of cases the explanation seems to be simple enough.

1 We have not yet discovered a manuscript containing exactly Marcion's text.

The chances of our still doing so are very small in view of the hatred with whichMarcion was pursued. But when the libelli of certain libellatici have been found,and also a great part of the Gospel of Peter, we need not despair of finding other lost

works as well. Codex 604 is interesting as exhibiting the Marcionite reading,tKBiiu rb Tvivpi trov l<j>' iifias «ol KaOapitriru wiat, in the Lord's Prayer, Lukexi. 2. The same manuscript omits pt \4yrt thai in Luke ix. 20, and xiyovaain verse 35. Compare also Jlllicher, CUichnisredcnJesu, ii. 5 :

" Marcion, whoperhaps created the Roman text of Luke xxi. 30."

a On this passage W.-W. observe : " D ex Latin is forsan corrcctus."3 "Licet sius adiectio sit haeretici." Tertullian.

Tatian.

Marcion began his career at Rome, so that we may naturally

expect him to give us a Western text. So far, therefore, one

might be tempted simply to ignore that text as hitherto,

although a text attested by Marcion and the Church in

common is surely entitled, even in respect of its antiquity, to

much more consideration than has been paid to it heretofore.

The importance, and at the same time the difficulty, of the

problem is increased by the fact that we find the same text as

his, or at all events one of a similar sort, represented in a

totally different quarter—viz. in Tatian. 1

(h) Tatian 2 has already been referred to in a general

way above (p. 97 ff): we shall now give the testimony of

the early church regarding him verbatim. If we leave

out of account the somewhat doubtful reference in Hege-

sippus (p. 96), and an equally uncertain allusion to the

title of his Harmony in Origen,3 the testimony from purely

Greek sources is confined to a few sentences in Eusebius,4

1 In the critical notes at the end of this chapter I have cited a number of

Marcion's readings from Zahn's work, with the hope that these will now earn

a fuller recognition in our theological commentaries. See e.g. on Luke xviii. 20

;

xxiii. 2 ; xxiv. 37 ; I Cor. vi. 20 ; xiv. 19.

s See Literature on p. 105 !., lo which add Westcott, Canon, Tart I. c iv.

§ 10.

3 Defending the plurality of the canonical Gospels against the Marcionites, he

says : to aATie&s Sia rtandpwv SV iarw ttiayyeMoy (Philotalia, ed. Robinson, 47 ;

Zahn, GK. i. 412; PRE", v. 654). From what Origen says, Contra Celsum,

vi. 51, it would seem that he himself heard Tatian.

4 Euseb., Hist. Eccl., iv. 29, with reference to the Encratites : Xpirrai piy olv

oStoi Ni)^V Kal npoipijTaiJ Kal EvayytXlms (Syriac has p'Sj)lK), lilus IpfiriylioyTts

twv itpHv tA yoijiiaTa ypa(pajy .... fJKaa<piip.oiivTU 8i Uav\ov rbv bwoaroXov

aOtroiiaiv outoC tAs 'EitiotoAAj, juij5( tAi Tipd(tis ray h.*o<ni\wv KaTaStxo'fMi'oi.

fiivroi yt -xpirfpos avray Apxiyor Tariaybs avvdtptidy nw Kal auyayaiybv ovk

oi5' Siriuj t£v 'EvayyiUlvv crvySiU Tb Aii Ttacrdpwv toCto wpocray4iia<ril>' o Kal

irapd tutiv elfftVi (ptpirai. ToC Si 'AitootoAov <paa\ roXuvaal Tiraj alirby piTa-

(ppiaai (puv&s iis iTribiopBoifityoy avTur tV ttji (ppiaiws (rivTativ. KaTaA«\onr<

Si oEtoj iroAii ti jtJ\tj0oi ypnp.p.dTay k.t. A. In the Syriac version it runs : But this

Tatian, their first head, collected and combined and framed a {or, the) p'SiiiK

and called it p-iotn, that is " the combined," which is in the possession of many

till this day. And it is said of him that he ventured to alter certain phrases of

the Apostle (the plural points in the Syriac are to be omitted) as with the object

of amending the composition of the phrases. And he has left many writings, etc.

a notice in Epiphanius,1 and a scholion in a manuscript of

the Gospels.'

For more exact information we are indebted solely to the

Syrian church. The Greek writer Theodoret gives us most

details.3 The notices contained in Syriac and Arabic sources

are more numerous than the Greek, but they are shorter and

must be omitted here.4 It becomes necessary, therefore, to

consider very carefully whether any vestiges of Tatian's work

are preserved in our witnesses for the text, and how these

may, and indeed must, be used in its criticism. I assume

as having been demonstrated by Zahn, that Tatian's Diates-

saron was a Syriac work, and I take it as very probable that

the Curetonian Syriac and the Lewis Syriac present us with

two works based on, or at least influenced by, that of Tatian.

To what extent the same is true of the Peshitto as well need

not be considered here, the main problem being to elucidate

the connection between Tatian and the Western witnesses.

And here we are at once confronted with a matter of great

uncertainty — viz., whether there might not also have

been a Greek Harmony of the Gospels either antecedent to

1 Epiphan., Hatret, 46, 1 (Pet. 391) : Ktyoucri 8c rb 5,4 nandpuy ZuayyiAioy

i/w aurov yiytyyjaQai, twtp kotA 'ZfipalovS Ttvis KaXovtri.3 Minuscule Evan. 72 (Harleianus 5647 of the eleventh century) on Matt, xxvii.

48 : iTnlfittuffat] in «fi rb Had* laroplav ivayytMoy AioSwpov ical TariayoC «al

&\>.uy Sia<pipay aylaiy vartpuy tooto irpoo~KiiTai. Instead of bioSupov, Harnack-Prcusclien (i. 493), read Aiatiipov, whether rightly or not I do not know. Noth-ing being known of the historical Gospel of one Diodorus, it is natural enough to

conjecture (Zahn, Forsth., i. 28) that the reading should be SiA 5', but what becomes

then of upov Kal ? Harnack suggests Sia 8' iipou TaTiarov, but see Zahn, Forsch.

,

ii. 298. The omission of the article before 81A 8' is a difficulty.

3 In his 'Eitito/iJ) alptTiicijs KuKOfivBlas (i. 20 ; vol. iv. 312), written in the year

453, he says at the end of the chapter on Tatian ;—olror xal to Sia THradpuvKa\oip.tyoy auyriSttxty tvayy4\toy, rds rt ytvaXoyias ir<piK<tyai Kal tA SAAa So-a

in ffwippaTos Aa£lB Kara adpKa ytytvviinivov rbv xvpioy l*{Kv\iau>, Ixp-fjoavro 8c

Tot'Tif 00 parol 01 Tqt txtlvtv ffi^iuopfal, oAXd xal 01 toTi Aitoo-toXikoit ftro/tfi/oi

Soy/iairi, tV' ttji vvvBijuljr KOHOvpyiay ovk lyywuSrt s, a\X* arXovartpcy us

uvyrdnip Tip $l$\lu xW^fHvoi. Elpov << xiyii wKtlovs I) tiMoirfaf fliflAoui

Toiaiirar iv rats wap' b>uv i*«\iialais rtTifirifi/yas, xal rdaas avyayayuv a»«*«'u7jK

xal tA ray rtrrdpvy tbayytXiarwy iurrtiff-fiyayoy.

' See Hamlyn Hill, Earliest Lift of Christ, etc., p. 324 ; Hope W. Hogg, Ante-Nicene Library, Additional Volume.

214 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. CHAP. Ill] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 215

the Diatessaron or contemporary with it, which Tatian him-

self made or employed. Zahn thinks not, mainly because

from the side of the Greek Church we have almost no notice

whatever of the existence of anything of this sort, nor of

Tatian's own work either. Harnack seems not to be con-

vinced of the correctness of Zahn's position.1 He even

declares that Harris's Preliminary Study 2 has only confirmed

his " conviction that Tatian composed a Greek Harmony ol

the Gospels." 3 That treatise is accompanied by a facsimile

of the fragment of Mark in Codex Wu,

" the contents of which

display an affinity with the text of the Diatessaron (with the

original text ?)." 4 At all events Harnack is of opinion that

Harris's conclusions with regard to a Pre-Tatian and a very

early Harmony of the narrative of the Passion are very

premature, and in his judgment should either not have been

put forward at all in a Preliminary Study or suggested with

more deliberation. G. Kriiger also puts "this CombinedGospel written in Syriac (Greek ?) " in his History of Early

Christian Literature, § 37. On the other hand, Hogg in § 12 of

his Introduction,6 Non-Syriac Texts of the Diatessaron, says

nothing of a Greek text, and in § 19, where he raises the

question, " In what language was it written ?", he speaks only

of the " view favoured by an increasing majority of scholars,

that it was written in Syriac," and then asks, on this view,

"was it a translation or simply a compilation?" and lastly,

which is the main question, " what precisely is its relation to

. . the Western text generally ?"

In his first work, written prior to the publication of the

Arabic text, Zahn very frequently pointed to the fact that

the so-called Western witnesses

—

i.e., Codex D and the Old

1 See Die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten, 1882, pp. 196-218, and,

on the other side, Zahn, Forschungen, ii. 292 ff.

2 The Diatessaron of Tatian : a Preliminary Study, 1890.

"See ThLz., 1891, col. 356.4

It is not clear whether Harnack gives this as his own opinion or not. For a

reading of cod. Wd, akin to that of Tatian, see below on Mark vii. 33, p. 264.

5 Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Additional Volume, p. 38.

Latin manuscripts, agree so often with Tatian. 1 His explana- Tatian

tion of this phenomenon is very simple—viz., that Tatian western

returned from Rome to his old home in Syria about the Text.

year 172, and took with him from the West his text, which

was just the Western text. This view would present no

difficulty if it were only the case that the Diatessaron shared

the peculiarities of the Western text, but is the fact not

rather the converse of this—viz., that D, the leading repre-

sentative of that text, shares the peculiarities of a Harmonyof the Gospels, might we say, in short, of the Diatessaron ?

Not only are certain readings the same in both texts, but the

Western text seems actually to exhibit features which canscarcely be regarded otherwise than as the outcome of a

Harmony. I have given expression to this opinion ere now

;

it struck me forcibly when I was collating the Codex Bezaefor my Supplementum Novi Testamenti Graeci. In order

to afford a more convenient survey of the vast number ofvariants, I followed the paragraphing of Westcott and Hort'sedition. Now look at the variants there. Whereas themajority consist of quite separate and disconnected read-ings, I was obliged at the beginning of the pericopae regu-larly to copy half a line or even a whole line from D, its textdiffered so much from that of our present editions at thebeginnings of the pericopae, and there only to the sameextent. See, e.g., Luke v. 17, 27; vii. 1, 18 ; ix. 37; x. 1, 25 ;

xi. 14 ;xii. 1 to the end ; xxiv. 13. It is true this phenomenon

is most frequently observed in Luke, where I had previouslyexplained its appearance in another way by supposing likeBlass that it was due to the author having issued two editionsof that Gospel. But neither is it altogether absent from theother Gospels. It occurs most seldom, as might be expected,in Matthew, but examples may be seen in xvii. 22, 24 ; xx. 29.In Mark see iii. 19; iv. 1; vi. 7. There are other featuresbesides this which are difficult of explanation on any othergrounds. For these I may briefly refer to the second of

1 See Forschungen, i. 130, 140, 216, 228 f., 237, 248, 263.

2l6 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III.

the works relating to this part of the subject, The Syro-

Latin Text of the Gospels, by F. H. Chase,5 in which a special

chapter is devoted to the question of" Harmonistic Influence''

(pp. 76-100). The writer calls attention there to three points,

viz. :—

1. " The text of Codex Bezae shows constant indications

of harmonistic influence." This, however, is nothing new.

Jerome, e.g., complains of amalgamations of this sort. But

then,

2. "In such harmonized passages readings occur which we

are justified by other evidence in considering as Tatianic

readings."

3." There are other signs of the influence of Syriac phrase-

ology in, or in the neighbourhood of, such readings due to

harmonistic influence."

I waive consideration of this last point, but as regards the

second it is noteworthy, and bears out what I have said above,

that Chase in this connection goes almost entirely by passages

from Luke with the exception of Matt. xxi. 18; xxiv. 31 f.

;

xxvi. 59 ff. ; and Mark viii. 10 ; xiii. 2 ; x. 25 ff. From Lukehe instances iii. 23-38 ; iv. 31 ; v. 10 f., 14 f. ; vi. 42 ; viii. 35 ;

xi. 2 ; xx. 20 ; xxi. 7 ; xxiii. 45 ff. ; xxiv. 1.

I should like, however, to call attention here to one passage

to which Chase refers in another connection—viz., the extensive

interpolation after Matt. xx. 28 (Chase, pp. 9-14). It is true,

as Zahn expressly points out,2 that neither Ephraem nor

Aphraates, who were our only sources for the Diatessaron

prior to 1881, " shows any traces of this long and in part apoc-

ryphal interpolation, nor yet of Luke xiv. 7-10, from whichthe most of it is taken." But in the Arabic Tatian,3 Lukexiv. 1-6 and xiv. 7-1 1, 12-15 are found after Matt. xx. 1-16

at the end of § 29 and the beginning of § 30 respectively.

The verse Matt. xx. 28, regarding which Zahn was uncertain

1 London, Macmillan, 1895. 2 Forsckungen, i. 179.3 This will be found most conveniently in Hogg's translation—Ante-Nicene

Library, Additional Volume.

CHAR III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 217

whether it was in Tatian or not, seeing that neither Ephraem

nor Aphraates mentions it, is found in § 31, 5 between Mark

x. 44 and Luke xiii. 22, while Matt. xx. 29*7 ( + Mark x. 46a)

follows a little further down in § 31, 25. So far, indeed,

this result is not favourable to our theory. But I ask my-

self in vain how else this interpolation is to be explained

except as an attempt at harmonising. Now, seeing that its

text is found in one Syriac, two Greek, and half a dozen Latin

witnesses (the particulars are given in the critical note, p. 255),

the further question arises, Whence comes it ? The most ready

answer will be, " it comes from the Greek, whence it passed to

the Latin on the one side and to the Syriac on the other."

As for the Latin, it is certain that the majority, perhaps even

all, of the Latin forms are derived from the Greek. But are

the Syriac as well ? Or is not rather the converse true, how-

ever strange it may seem at the first glance, that the Greek is

a translation of the Syriac ? There is the word SenrvoKX^riop,

e.g., which strikes me as it did Chase, as being particularly

strange. I admit that I should not care to build a hypothesis

of this magnitude on this one word and this one passage alone.

I would merely submit it generally as a question to be kept

in view in further investigations. And I would supplement

it by another question whether, in the case of the first being

negatived, it may not be true after all, pace Zahn, that there

was a Greek Harmony alongside the Syriac and probably

going back to the same author. May not the close re-

semblances traceable between Tatian and the Western text

be also accounted for on the supposition that instead of

Tatian being influenced by the latter, it really goes back to

Tatian ?

I would ask this question specially in regard to the Western

text of the Pauline Epistles. What is meant by the state-

ment of Eusebius cited above as to Tatian's treatment of

these Epistles? liera<f>pda-ai may certainly mean to translate,

but then one translates an entire text and not fwvds rivat

merely, and, moreover, one does not translate J>j ewiStopOov/xtvoi

avrwv rhv Tr/y <j>pd<rews avvragiv " with a view to improving

the phraseology and syntax." Do not our Western witnesses

present us with a work of this description ? I am well aware

that such hypotheses are like that regarding the author of

the Nibelungenlied where there was a great poem without a

name and one or two great names without poems, and so

various combinations were made, for each of which something

could be said, while none of them could be said to be proved.

That may be the case here too. But at present I feel disposed

to attribute a considerable share in this peculiar " Western"

Syro-Latin. text to Tatian. And as this name " Western," the inappro-

priateness of which has long been recognised, becomes on this

supposition more inappropriate still, I am inclined to recom-

mend the freer adoption of the nomenclature familiarised by

the work of Chase, I mean that of " Syro-Latin.'' In his

preface Chase puts in a plea for its use, citing a sentence

from the Dublin Revieiv of July 1894, p. 52, in which H.

Lucas says :" The time is, we hope, not far distant, when the

term Western will give place to the term Syro-Latin, the only

one which truly represents, in our opinion, the facts of the

case.1' Just as when we wish to indicate those languages and

tribes that extend from the Indian to the German and Keltic

we say Indo-Germanic, or Indo-Keltic, if we wish to be more

exact and avoid wounding the sensibilities of the French, so

the term Syro-Latin would be the best designation for a form

of text whose characteristics are as distinctly traceable among

the Syrians in the East as among the Greeks in the centre

and the Latins in the West. But be that as it may, one thing

is clear, that many problems here await solution. But they

will not for ever defy methodical investigation.

The foregoing was all written before I saw the analysis given by

Zahn in his Geschichte des Kanons, i. 383 ff. Reading it, I am sur-

prised that his conclusions have not been followed up by a thorough

investigation of the subject long ere now. Personally, I am pre-

cluded at this moment from even making an attempt in this direction.

Zahn says: "The quotations of Aphraates frequently presuppose a

different Greek text (of the Pauline Epistles) than that lying at the

foundation of the Peshitto. The repeated resemblances to Western

texts, Claromontanus, Boernerianus (D G), Tertullian, and other

Latin witnesses are particularly striking. In the earliest Syriac

Gospel the same phenomenon appears even more conspicuously.

How is it to be explained ? Shall we suppose that this type of text

was dispersed equally throughout all parts of the Church during the

second century? In that case we should have to regard it as the

earliest form at which we can arrive, on the principle laid down by

Tertullian : quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum sed

traditum. But," says Zahn, " even those who venerate the Western

tradition of the text—i.e. those who, like myself, are of opinion that

it does not get nearly its due share of attention from present-day

critics—will decline to assent to this proposition. Because the result

of this view would be to establish the rule that the so-called Western

tradition invariably deserves the preference over those others, even

over our oldest Greek manuscripts themselves. Even if we limited

it to those elements of the text in which the furthest East agrees

with the furthest West, the result would still be a text to which no

cautious critic would pin his faith. A more natural explanation of

this striking condition of things is required." Zahn finds this in the

supposition that there was formerly a close intimacy between the

Syrian Church and Rome. "Just as the Princes of Edessa had

much direct intercourse with Rome, so to all appearance had the

Church there." In proof of this, he points to the early intrusion of

Marcion's doctrines and Bible into Mesopotamia, to the participa-

tion of the Church of Edessa in the Easter controversy and its

agreement in that matter with Victor of Rome, and to the Abgar

Legend which connects Edessa with Zephyrinus of Rome (199-216)

by way of Antioch, and represents Peter as sending the Epistles of

Paul from Rome to Edessa. " Considering the anachronisms that

legends usually exhibit, may we not take this to be the expression of

an historical fact, viz. that a text written in the West formed the basis

of the earliest Syriac version of the Pauline Epistles ? This supposi-

tion is confirmed by the earliest history of the Gospel among the

Syrians—viz. by the Diatessaron." ' After a most thorough discus-

sion of all the questions relating to that book (pp. 387-422), Zahn

1Cf. p. 393: "To judge from Ephraem's Commentary, the Diatessaron con-

tains scarcely as much apociyphal matter as Codex Cantabrigiensis of the Gospels

and Acts."

discovers in this part also (the Gospels) an intimate connection

between the text on which it is based, and the form assumed by the

text of the Gospels in the West during the second century. And he

believes that it will be difficult to find a more feasible explanation of

the remarkable agreement evidenced by these two texts in the very

matter of their textual corruption and licence than this, that this

text came from Rome to Syria. And so the final question arises,

" whether a connection does not exist between the first Gospel and

the first text of Paul and the Acts in the Syriac, and whether the

entire N. T., as the Doctrine of Addai says, was not a present which

Tatian brought with him from Rome to his countrymen, and adapted

for their use by means of a free translation and revision ? " Zahn

thinks that a positive answer cannot be given, but he refers pointedly

to what Eusebius says regarding Tatian's treatment of the Pauline

Epistles, and is led to suppose that those changes were introduced

on the occasion and in the form of a translation from the Greek into

Syriac, and that the reason why Eusebius had such hazy notions

regarding it as well as the Diatessaron, is most likely that both the

books were in Syriac, and used only in the Syrian Church. A closer

investigation of the Pauline Epistles in the Syriac is needed to decide

these questions.

To these propositions of Zahn I have but the one objection

stated above, that the expressions used by Eusebius point far too

plainly to a revision of the phraseology of the Pauline Epistles, which

could have been done only on the original Greek. 1 Zahn himself

points out that the words of Eusebius remind us of what is elsewhere

said of the Theodotians (Eccl. Hist., v. 28, 15. 18; see above,

p. 200).2

1 In his N. T. urn 200, p. 10S, Harnack treats Zahn's interpretation of the words

of Eusebius as a bad blunder. The latter defends himself by saying among other

things that it is not quite clear whether Eusebius himself was aware of the double

meaning of the word furaippiiiai which was employed in the tradition (he says

ipaat) reported to him. He thinks that Rulinus might be said to have " para-

phrased " certain commentaries of Origen, correcting his thought and phraseology

in many places. True, but in Eusebius it is <jWdi rival rov anoar^Kov, not whole

epistles, that Tatian is said to have "metaphrased."2 On the words of Jerome (ad Tit.praef., vii. 686), " Sed Tatianus Encratitarum

patriarches, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli epistolas repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, hoc

est ad Titum, apostoli pronuntiandam credidit, parvipendens Marcionis et aliorum

qui cum eo in hac parte consentiunt assertionem," compare Zahn, Forsch., i. 6,

GK. i. 426.

(i) The Western Text.—We thus find ourselves face to face Western Text,

with what has been called the only burning question of the

textual criticism of the New Testament—the question, namely,

of the place to be assigned to the so-called Western text.

Our treatment of the external testimony has led us back

through Lucian, Pamphilus, Hesychius, and Origen, to Marcion

and Tatian, that is, into the middle of the second century.

But the question is now whether we must stop here, or whether

it is not possible to ascend with certainty even somewat higher

by means of an investigation of the material afforded by the

manuscripts themselves. The " Higher Criticism," e.g., seeks

to get behind the Synoptic Gospels to the documents which

the authors or editors used in their composition; is it not

possible for the " Lower Criticism " to recover with certainty

at least the primitive text of the New Testament books ? And

is that not most readily found in the so-called Western text ?

We have been obliged to make frequent reference to it already ;

the question for us now is, " What is the value of Codex Bezae

and its associates?"

It was observed by Theodore Beza himself, the scholar whose

name the Codex justly bears, that the text of this manuscript

differed in so many respects from that of others, especially in

Luke and Acts, that he could give no explanation of it satis-

factory to himself. He was not led to suppose that the altera-

tions were due to heretics ; nevertheless, like a cautious man,

he thought it more advisable to preserve the Codex than to

publish it. Eight hundred years before, Bede was similarly

impressed by the Codex which we now know by the name of

Laudianus, E2. He indicated " quaedam quae in Graeco sive

aliter seu plus aut minus posita vidimus." He was uncertain

" utrum negligentia interprets omissa vel aliter dicta, an incuria

librariorum sint depravata sive relicta .... namque graecum

exemplar fuisse falsatum suspicari non audeo." When the

manuscripts began to be more systematically collated, Bengel

declared that the criticism of the text would be much simpli-

fied if one were not bound to trouble himself with these

222 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III.CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 223

codices, which, as being written in Greek and Latin, he called

vere Irilingucs. Old students of the Maulbronn College have

told me that Ephonis Baumlein the most distinguished

philologist of our Institute in this century, and editor of Dis-

quisitions on the Greek Particles and similar works, was always

referring to the Codex Cantabrigiensis, though they themselves

never rightly understood about this Codex, or indeed about

such things at all. I do not know who it was from whom I

myself first heard of it ; certainly there was no particular

importance attributed to it in my student days or at the college

where I was. On the other hand, Teschendorf admitted its

claims in opposition to all the other Greek manuscripts in

several passages, such as Mark ii. 22 ; xi. 6 ; Luke xxiv. 52, 53,

etc. In other places he did so at first, but changed his opinion

afterwards

—

e.g., in Acts xi. 12, while in others again, like

Acts xiii. 45, he was inclined to accept its testimony, asserting

expressly : Ceterum D quantopere passim inter omnes testes

excellat constat. One of the things for which Westcott and

Hort deserve credit is the attention they have directed to

Codex Bczae and its associates. Some of their remarks upon

it will be found in the note below. 1

1 Inlrod.y ii. § 170, p. 120. On all accounts Ihc Western text claims our attention

first. The earliest readings which can he fixed chronologically belong to it. As

far as we can judge from extant evidence, it was the most widely-spread text of

Ante-Nicene times ; and sooner or later every version directly or indirectly felt

its influence. But any prepossessions in its favour that might be created by this

imposing early ascendancy are for the most part soon dissipated by continuous

study of its internal character. The eccentric Winston's translation of the Gospels

and Acts from the Codex Bezae, and of the Pauline Epistles from the Codex

Claromontanus, and liornemann's edition of the Acts, in which the Codex liczae

was taken as the standard authority, are probably the only attempts which have

ever been made in modern times to set up an exclusively, or even predominantly,

Western Greek text as the purest reproduction of what the Apostles wrote. This

all but universal rejection is doubtless partly owing to the persistent influence of a

whimsical theory of the last century, which, ignoring all non-Latin Western docu-

mentary evidence except the handful of extant bilingual uncials, maintained that the

Western Greek text owed its peculiarities to translation from the Latin; partly to an

imperfect apprehension of the antiquity and extension of the Western text as revealed

by Patristic quotations and by versions. Yet even with the aid of a true perception

of the facts of Ante-Nicene textual history, it would have been strange if this text,

That peerless scholar, P. de Lagarde, has even greater Lagarde.

claims to honourable mention in this connection, though but

as a whole, had found much favour. A few scattered Western readings have long

been approved by good textual critics on transcriptional and to a great extent insuffi-

cient grounds ; and in Teschendorf's last edition their number has been augmented,

owing to the misinterpreted accession of the Sinai MS. to the attesting documents.

To one small and peculiar class of Western readings, exclusively omissions, we shall

ourselves have to call attention as having exceptional claims to adoption.

§ 202 (p. 149). In spite of the prodigious amount of error which D contains,

these readings, in which it sustains and is sustained by other documents derived

from very ancient texts of other types, render it often invaluable for the secure

recovery of the true text ; and, apart from this direct applicability, no other single

source of evidence, except the quotations of Origen, surpasses it in value on the

equally important ground of historical or indirect instructiveness. To what extent

its unique readings are due to licence on the part of the scribe rather than to faithful

reproduction of an antecedent text now otherwise lost, it is impossible to say ; but

it is remarkable how frequently the discovery of fresh evidence, especially Old- Latin

evidence, supplies a second authority for readings in which 1) had hitherto stood

alone.

§ 240 (p. 175). On the other hand there remain, as has been before intimated

(§ 170), a few other Western readings of similar form, which we cannot doubt to be

genuine in spite of the exclusively Western character of their attestation. Theyare all omissions, or, to speak more correctly, non-interpolations of various length,

that is to say, the original record has here, to the best of our belief, suffered inter-

polation in all the extant non-Western texts. . . . With a single peculiar

exception (Matt, xxvii. 49), in which the extraneous words are omitted by the

Syrian as well as by the Western text, the Western non-inlerpolations arc con-

fined to the last three chapters of St. Luke.

§ 241. These exceptional instances of the preservation of the original text in

exclusively Western readings are likely to have had an exceptional origin.

In the edition of 1896, the surviving editor (Westcott) appends an Additional

Note which contains a further exceedingly valuable admission in the same direc-

tion. It is as follows :

—

Note to p. 121, § 170 (p. 328): "The Essays of Dr. Chase on The SyriacElement in Codex Be:ac, Cambridge, 1893, and The Syro-Latin Text of th<.

Gospels, Cambridge, 1895, are a most important contribution to the solution of a

fundamental problem in the history of the text of the N.T. The discovery of theSinaitic MS. of the Old Syriac raises the question whether the combination of theoldest types of the Syriac and Latin texts can outweigh the combination of theprimary Greek texts. A careful examination of the passages in which Syr"" andk are arrayed against k B, would point to the conclusion." [The proper title ofChase's Essays is The Old Syriac, under which shorter (outside) title Zahn alsoquotes (hem {Einl., ii. 348).] This statement by Westcott sounds strange after theremark made in the Preface. " For the rest," he says there, " I may perhaps beallowed to say that no arguments have been advanced against the generalprinciples maintained in the Introduction and illustrated in the Notes since thepublication of the First Edition, which were not fully considered by Dr. Hort and

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. CHAP. III.] THEORY AND TRAXIS. 225

little regard was paid to his representations during his life-

time. As early as 1857, he said of Codex Cantabrigiensis

:

facile patet, quum similibus libris careamus et ultra Evangelia

et Actus nondum cogitem, totius editionis meae quasi funda-

mentum futurum esse hunc codicem Cantabrigiensem, sed

eutn eis librarii vitiis purgatum quae vitia esse agnita fuerint

(Gcsam. Abh., p. 98). His chief merit, however, lies not in his

having estimated Cantabrigiensis so highly, but in having

assigned a lower value to the other manuscripts. By com-

paring D with the earlier versions, and particularly by

relying on the testimony of Epiphanius, he recognised in it

a representative of an "editio emendatorum orthodoxorum

temeritate corrupta'' {ibid., p. 96). Compare also his Ueber-

sichl i'tber die Bildung der Nomina, p. 213, where he instances

eTa^av avafialvew of the " emendati " for Trapi'/yyeiXav avafiaivew

of D. 1

ulass .General attention was first directed to the question of the

Western text, when Blass came forward with his view that it

was quite wrong to present the problem in the shape of an

alternative between D and A B, because both groups were

right, D and its associates representing a first edition of the

Acts and a second of Luke, and the other group conversely.

I hailed this solution of the difficulty at once as a veritable

Columbus Egg, and to this day I am firmly persuaded that

Blass's theory is nearer the mark than the previous estimate

of the Western text. Readers may, perhaps, be struck by the

Zahn. fact, which Zahn has since made public (Etui, ii. 348), that in

his practical class at Erlangen, in the winter of 1885-6, he set

as the subject of the prize essay an " Investigation of the

materially important peculiarities of Codex D in the Acts,"

and made a note at the time of the result which he hoped to

see the investigation arrive at—viz., " either the author's first

myself in the long course of our work, and in our judgment dealt with accurately.

—Auckland Castle, March 27, 1896. B. F. D."1 See my Philologica Sacra, p. 3, where I have cited this passage of Lagarde.

His lumk may not be very accessible to textual critics.

draft before publication or his hand copy with his ownmarginal notes inserted afterwards." Zahn himself got nofurther, but he was not surprised when Blass came forward

with his clearly-defined and thoroughly-elaborated hypo-thesis. In one point, certainly, Zahn does not agree with

Blass, and that is in the application of the hypothesis to Luke.He holds that the text which Blass restored as the Romanform or second edition of Luke is essentially nothing but abold attempt to restore what is called the Western text ; that

the question to which such different answers have been madeas to the value of this type of text—for it is not to be spokenof as a recension in the proper sense of that term—is by nomeans confined to the Third Gospel, but touches the othersas well and the Pauline Epistles also ; that the reason whythe divergence of the Western text from that exhibited in theoldest manuscripts and the great majority of Greek witnessesis more conspicuous in Luke, is simply that we have theadditional testimony of Marcion for that Gospel, but thequestion is essentially the same in all the cases ; that whereasin Acts we have two parallel texts both possessing equalauthority, in Luke the case is different, where in determiningwhat the evangelist actually wrote, we have to choose one orthe other of two mutually exclusive propositions ; that thisverdict on the text of Luke, however, in no way invalidatesthe conclusion come to as regards the text of the Acts. Butfurther, Zahn, who even before this had avowed himself an"admirer of the Western text," stands up determinedly forthe view that this same Western text, which I shall, like Zahnand Blass, indicate henceforward as /3, contains much that is

original. He says that just as we must beware of a super-stitious idolatry of what are styled the best manuscripts, 1

which goes hand in hand with a disparagement of mucholder tradition (Marcion, Irenaeus), so we have equally to beon our guard against a morbid preference for every interest-

1 "Thou shall worship no manuscripts" was one of the ten commandmentsthat Lehrs gave philologists.

ing and fanciful excrescence of the riotous tradition of the

second and third centuries. Such a preference would

logically imply that the scholars who took in hand to revise

the text about the beginning of the fourth century simply

corrupted it, somewhat after the fashion of those who set

themselves to "improve" our Church hymns in the age of

Rationalism. More than twenty years ago, when I was a

Tutor at Tubingen, I had the impression to which I frequently

enough gave utterance in debate with my colleagues, that

modern textual criticism is going altogether on the wrong

tack. The textual study of the New Testament was out of

my province at that time, and is really so still, were it not

that, as Augustine says, it is necessary for everyone who

devotes himself to the holy Scriptures to take up such studies.

Nor am I inclined thus far to fall foul of the system to which

Westcott and Hort devoted the labours of a lifetime, and in

the building up of which they had at their command such an

apparatus as is far beyond the reach of a German, especially

of one who is not attached to any University. And as for

the results of Zahn's researches, I prefer to look upon myself

here as a mere learner and admirer. In the presence of such

doughty warriors I feel like a spectator upon the battlefield

of New Testament textual criticism, and I would beg that

what follows, as well as what has been already said, be re-

garded as but suggestions, the acceptance or rejection of

which by others may perchance serve to bring a younger

generation nearer to the goal. In this spirit I have in myPhilologica Sacra ( I—

15th March 1896) taken as a starting-

point the reading in Luke xxii. 52, \aov = vaov = tepou, which

is not mentioned at all by Tischendorf, and have sought by

means ofone or two analogous cases to show " how frequently Dpreserves the correct reading." I have instanced eirrtnrXao-iova,

Luke xviii. 30 ; <pavra<Tp.a, xxiv. 37 ; Sepptv Ka/mjXov, Marki 6 ; ijvoiyufvoui, i, 10, which might, however, be inserted from

Matt. iii. 1 6, Luke iii. 21 ; opyio-dels, Mark i. 40; 6/xota^ei, Matt.

xxvi. 73.

In the first sketch of this Introduction, written in the year

1895, I referred to the addition found in Matt, xxvii. 49,

which is manifestly taken from John xix. 34, and is read by

many authorities, among these being s B C.1I said then

:

" Only two possibilities are conceivable. Either the passage

stood here originally, and was removed at an early date on

account of its variance with John xix. 34, or it is an inter-

polation. In the latter case, it must have been inserted at a

very early date, and all the witnesses containing it, which

elsewhere are so frequently and so widely divergent, must

then go back to one and the same exemplar. Because the

third possibility—viz. that the same sentence was inserted

in different copies in the same place quite independently

of each other, no one will consider to be at all likely. But

if the second supposition is to be held as correct, then we see

just what amount of importance is to be attached to the

concurrence of our oldest witnesses, particularly our chief

manuscripts x B C L. They are not streams flowing inde-

pendently from the same fountain of Paradise: they flowed

together for a good part of their course, and were consider-

ably polluted before they parted company."

Two years later, when the first edition was issued, I added :

" This too must now be asserted with far greater emphasis,

that the concurrence of B x, on which so much stress has

been laid hitherto by almost all textual critics, proves nothing

at all. In Sirach the common archetype of B k was younger

than the origin of the Latin version, manifestly a good deal

younger, because it already contained errors that had not yet

made their appearance in our other manuscripts (or in their

sources). Salmon (p. 52) is of opinion that the text which Salmon.

Westcott and Hort have restored is one that was most in

favour in Alexandria in the third century, and that came

1 This passage was the subject of a heated discussion between Severus and

Macedonius at Constantinople in the year 510. On this occasion the superb copy

of Matthew's Gospel, which had been discovered in the grave of Barnabas in the

reign of the Emperor Zeno, was brought upon the scene.


there, perhaps, in the century previous. This is not far from

Bousset's view that B perhaps contains the recension of

Hesychius. Salmon calls the results of Westcott and Hort' an elaborate locking of the stable door after the horse has

been stolen.' Burgon's paradox, that the reason why B and

X have survived is that they were the worst, seemed to

Salmon at first to be a joke, but he now thinks it not improb-

able that they were set aside on account of their divergence

from the form of text that acquired ascendancy at a later

time. If that be so, then they met the same fate that they

themselves prepared for the primitive form they supplanted ;

and just as they, with the help of Tischendorf and Westcott

and Hort, dislodged the Textus Receptus of the sixteenth

and seventeenth centuries from the hands of theologians, and

made themselves the Textus Receptus of the end of the nine-

teenth century, so perchance will Codex D, which the builders

despised, become the foundation-stone of a new structure.

In Urtext, p. 54, Oscar v. Gebhardt alludes to the objections

raised partly against the entire method of Westcott and Hort,

partly against their particular estimate of Codex Vaticanus,

and partly also against the position they have assigned to

what they call the Western text, and he too says : 'If

these objections are valid, then the sure foundation which

they seemed at last to have secured for the text of the NewTestament begins once more to totter.'

"

Since this was written, my impressions have been greatly

confirmed, particularly by Zahn's Einleitung ; only I must

admit that I am now less in a position than ever to make any

definite proposals as to the way in which the goal of the

textual criticism of the New Testament is to be reached. Tofollow one witness or one group of witnesses through thick

and thin, which would really be the only consistent course,

will seemingly not do. 1 And the " eclectic method " to which

1 Compare what Westcott and Hort say of Whiston and Bornemann, cited

above, p. 222, and particularly the section on the twofold recension of the Actsin Zahn's Einleitung, ii. J 59, pp. 338-359. See also Burkitt's Introduction to

Bousset was led in his work on the Apocalypse as the only

possible one, is surely the opposite of the genealogical,

which we must acknowledge to be in theory the only

correct method. But first of all, a fresh application of it

would require to be made. And as the task is too great for

any single worker, might it not be well if, in the exegetical

classes of our Theological Faculties, the separate witnesses

were either examined anew, or, conversely, selected passages

of the text, quite small passages—a single chapter, or a single

epistle like 2 or 3 John or Philemon—were given out to

different students to examine thoroughly all the witnesses for

each passage, and the results then compared with one another ?

Furthermore, the critical apparatus would require at once to

be lightened of all those manuscripts which are unmistakeably

recognised to be the representatives of a definite recension,

and the Lucianic recension printed separately with or without

an apparatus, just as was done by Lagarde himself for half of

the Old Testament. Finally, the Western text would require

to be much more thoroughly examined than has hitherto been

the case. It is true that Weiss has given a special part of

Texte unci Untersuchungen to an examination of Codex D in

Acts, but without prejudice one may be quite sure that a

solution of the problem is not to be found in the way in

which Weiss seeks it. No doubt he establishes among other

things the fact, that in the Speeches of Peter displays

almost no variation, but then he makes no attempt to explain

this fact or make any use of it. It is an indication of con-

siderable progress to find Zahn going so carefully into matters

of the text in an Introduction to the New Testament, and his

appreciation of the Western text is most gratifying. At the Luke and

same time the reader will naturally ask whether Zahn's verdict

on the jQ text in Luke is not fatal to his own conclusions with

Barnard's Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria ( 7'exts and Studies, v. 5),

especially p. xviii :" Let us come out of the land of Egypt, which speaks, as

Clement's quotations show, with such doubtful authority, and let us see whether

the agreement of East and West, of Edcssa and Carthage, will not give us a surer

basis upon which to establish our text of the Gospels."

regard to Acts. Is it not true in this connection that "he

who says A must also say B " ? If you admit that there were

two editions of Acts, you must make the same admission in

the case of Luke. And conversely, if there was no second

edition of the Gospel, must you not then look for some other

explanation of the variations in Acts? For it seems quite

certain that the variants in Luke xxiv. are most closely

related to the text of Acts i. Or how else are the readings

in Luke xxiv. 51-53 to be explained? Westcott and Hort

have one way of explaining them. They say that kcu ave<f>tprro

et'c rov ovpavov "was evidently inserted from an assumption

that a separation from the disciples at the close of a Gospel

must be the Ascension. The Ascension apparently did not

lie within the proper scope of the Gospels, as seen in their

genuine texts ; its true place was at the head of the Acts of

the Apostles as the preparation for the Day of Pentecost, and

thus the beginning of the history of the Church;' That is all

very well, and it may also be the case that Trpoa-Kwjo-avTes

avrov in v. 52 is the natural result of the insertion of kcu

ai>€<pepero etc rov ovpavov. But how then are we to account for

the interchange of cvXayovvrti and a<VoOn-fc in the next verse,

which is found in precisely the same groups of witnesses? 1

If this explanation then is insufficient on account of verse 53,

it may be confidently asserted that the omission of the Ascen-

sion and the Worship of the Exalted Lord by any later scribe

is all but inconceivable from the moment that Luke was sepa-

rated from Acts and placed among the Gospels. If such a

1 Attention may be directed in passing to the interesting way in which the

witnesses are distributed. Thus we have in verse 51, for the omission of xai

avfptp. (it t. oip. K* D Syr" 1" a b d e fT 1*, Aug. 1/2 ; verse 52, omit wpomwaiiriv, D Syr 1'" a b d e ffl, Aug. l/l ; verse 53, alvovvrtt for tvKoyovvrfs Dabdeff 1 r (Aug.); (Syr'''" here has I'naD, not I'naPO which represents atvowrts in

Luke ii. 13, 20, xix. 37, and, therefore, must have read tiikoyowrts in this passage).

Now I ask, is it right to accept the testimony of D and its associates in verse 52,

only to reject it in verse 53? And what amount of weight is added to the testi-

mony of D by the addition of that of tt* ? Schiller says in Till : "The strong is

mightiest alone : united e'en the weak are strong"—how far are both these notions

true in textual criticism ?

CHAI'. Ill] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 231

thing were possible at all, it would be in the case of irpocncw?-

aavres avrov, as there is no express mention in Acts i. of the

disciples worshipping. On the other hand, the omission

becomes quite conceivable as soon as the author added a

SevTepos Xoyoc to the irpwToc. So far these variants appear

to me to fit in very well with Blass's theory and with no other.

Zahn, as far as I can see, has nowhere expressed any opinion

regarding them, certainly he says nothing of the variation be-

tween alvovvres and evXoyovvres, which is the one of most im-

portance critically, though it is of least consequence materially.

Graefe, following on the lines of Birt and Ruegg, supposes

that the shorter form was due to want of space, that Luke

was glad to get the shorter form all into his roll at the foot

the first time he wrote it out, and sent off the book to

Theophilus in that form, hoping to deal with the Ascension

in the second of his books. In the second edition he had suffi-

cient space to admit of the insertion of <ccu ave<pipcro eiy rov

ovpavov, then o( itpoa-KvvijcravTes airroV.and finally of evXoyouvres- 1

These additions he made, feeling, rightly enough, that there'

could be no more fitting conclusion to his Life of Jesus than

a brief allusion to the Ascension, which he had already

described more particularly in the Acts. At the same time

he substituted ew<t eiy for e£a> -rrpos. Graefe thinks that all

these changes are connected with the alterations made also

in the introduction to the Acts, though he omits to say what

the connection is.

Weiss, father and son, omit the words ku\ avetpepero eiy rov

ovpavov as "a gloss derived from Acts i.," and "likewise" the

words Trpoa-Kvvt'ia-avTei avrov in verse 52 (is this also a gloss

from Acts i.?). Which text they hold to be correct in

verse 53 they do not say.2

1 So Graefe, but it is not apparent whether the »a! that belongs to this reading

is to be supplied before it or after. Evidently he intends to read alv. ital •t'Ao-y.

with the great majority of witnesses, and not tlKoy. nal ai*. with the Ethiopic

version. See Th. St. A'r., 1898, i. J36f. The passage is regarded by Westcott

and Hort as a good example of " conflation," § 146.

' See now Textkritik dcr vicr Evangehen , pp. 48, 18 1.


AiVefV is the specifically Lucan word for "to praise,"

while euXoyelv in this sense does not occur in Acts at all,

and only in the first two chapters of Luke. Further, as anyconcordance will show, a«»«V is the regular equivalent of VSnand Ev\oyeii> of 113, while aii>eiv is rarely used for "pa or

€u\oye~w for SSa This confirms the supposition that aivovvret,

which is preferred by Teschendorf but rejected by Westcottand Ilort, is the original reading.

In order to show the full extent of the difficulty of theproblem, we shall take along with this passage from the endof the Gospel a single instance from the Acts. How doesthe Apostolic Decree read in ch. xv. ? " To judge any matterbefore knowing the facts of the case is inadmissible." SoHilgenfeld says in his magazine, adding that the matter ofthe Apostolic Council, as it is called, and the Decree havebeen so judged. He himself restores the whole text in this

passage to the form that Blass has adopted as the FormaRomana—i.e., to confine ourselves to this point of main im-portance, he omits " things strangled."- On the other hand,Harnack, in the article to which reference will be made below,comes to the conclusion that the Eastern, i.e. the common, textis the original, and the Western a later correction made sub-sequent to the Didache, and not earlier than the first decadeof the second century. 3 The same conclusion is reached byZahn in his extremely careful discussion of the question(Em/., ii. 344 ff.)

:" The two texts are here mutually exclusive,

and therefore cannot both be derived from the same author(xv. 20, 29, xxi. 25)." But he immediately adds: "The fact

1k'w,~iv is not given in Cremer's Dictionary among the synonyms of tv\oyt7v,

and is only cited on p. 610 with the reading aivowrfj na\ eiAo-yoC/Ttt from thispassage.

* See Hilgenfeld, Das Apestcl-Concil narii scincm ursfningluhen Wortlante inthe ZfwTh., 42 (1899), 1, 138-149.

3 Harnack, Das Aposteldecret (Acta xv. 29) und die Blass'sclie Hypothese,Berlin, 1899. From the Sitzungshcrichte der preuss. Akad. dtr Hiss. Noticedin the Expository Times for June 1899, p. 395 f. See also the Berliner philolog-ische I Vochenschrifl of the 13th May 1899.


that Blass, in this important point, as in many another of

less consequence, declares a certain thing to be an original

element of the text which turns out to be simply an early

corruption in no wise detracts from the correctness of his

hypothesis." That is quite true and must be borne in mind

in connection with the objection raised by Wendt, that

" manifest clerical errors are found in the actual text."

The passages are also used by Corssen as an argument

against Blass. The remarks of the latter in reply to the

strictures of Corssen (Evang. sec. Lucam,p. xxvi)seem to me to

be not without reason, but in any case it is strange that altera-

tions should have been made in an official document like the

Decree in Acts xv., no matter whether these were due to the

writer himself or a later intermediary. That there was some

method in the alteration is shown by its recurrence in three

places. But again I must emphasise the superiority of Codex

D. Whereas in ch. xv. 20, 29 the shorter text is represented

by other witnesses as well, in ch. xxi. 25 it is supported by Dwith the sole addition of Gigas Holmiensis. 1

I have not to

decide the question here ; I simply commend it to a searching

investigation, in which attention must be paid to the ap-

parently meaningless differences in the use of particles and

synonyms, of simple and compound words, and such-like

seeming minutiae. I can only repeat how frequently the

thought occurred to me when I was comparing Scrivener's

edition with that of v. Gebhardt for my Supplement, that here

was no alteration of a later scribe, and what then ? Thesimplest explanation was that both readings were due to the

author himself, who on the one occasion purposely set downthe one reading and on the other the other.

There is another question in connection with the Western

text which has been even more neglected than the former

—

viz. the amount of importance to be attached to it in the case

of the Pauline Epistles. What about Eusebius's reference to

Tatian's work on these Epistles ? I frankly confess that not1 See critical note in the Expositor's Greek Testament (Knowling), in loco.

2 34 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III.

criticism.

till the printing of this work was begun did I become aware,

mainly from Zahn's Einleitnng, how many problems are here

waiting to be solved, and for this reason as well as others I must

for the present forbear making any attempt in this direction.

Here I can only indicate a few of the most general rules of

textual criticism, and thereafter adduce a number of NewTestament passages which are of interest from a critical point

of view.

Rules of (Ji) General Rules of Textual Criticism.—In its essence the

task of the textual critic resembles that of the physician, whomust first of all make a correct diagnosis of the disease before

attempting its cure. Manifestly the first thing to do is to

observe the injuries and the dangers to which a text trans-

mitted by handwriting is liable to be exposed. A correct

treatment must be preceded by a correct diagnosis.

The injuries which a text receives will vary according as it

is multiplied by Dictation or by Copying-. The fifty Bibles

which Eusebius prepared at once for Constantine would be

written to dictation. In the early times of the Church, copying,

as has been already mentioned, would doubtless be the moreusual method of multiplication. Here, however, we mustmake a single exception in the case of Paul, who for the

most part did not write his Epistles with his own hand. Heevidently dictated them. He certainly did not have themsimply written out from his own rough draft.

Illegibility. (i) In the case of copying, errors originate first of all, though

not most frequently, in a word or group of letters being

illegible, or in their being read for some psychological reason

otherwise than as they were intended. However attentive the

copyist may be, he may still be in doubt as to the way in

which a word or passage should be read, and may decide

wrongly. Proper names, e.g., are often very doubtful. 1 Morefrequently however the mistake will be due to inattention.

The context may lead the copyist to expect a certain word

;

he sees one like it, and inserts the former in its place.

1Cf. the passage of Hernias cited above, p. 47.

CHAP. III.] THEORV AND PRAXIS. 235

(2) It frequently happens, particularly in copying the old Horaoio-

scriptio continua, that the eye of the scribe jumps from one

word or group of letters to another the same or similar to it,

either before or after it. In the former case the intervening

words will be repeated, in the latter they will be omitted.

Scholars designate these errors as dlttogTaphy and elision re-

spectively;printers know them under the name of a marriage

and a funeral. The former mistake is not so serious, because

it is at once detected on reading over the copy. A peep into

any manuscript will show how frequently this error occurs,

the repeated words being enclosed in brackets or surmounted

with dots.1 In Codex B such passages give us an opportunity

of observing the beauty of the original writing, because the

painstaking man who retraced the old writing with fresh ink

in the eighth, or tenth, or eleventh century, or whenever it

was, adding at the same time accents and punctuation marks,

left these untouched. This kind of mistake very often happens

in passages where a group of characters catches the eye for any

reason, such as the occurrence of the abbreviation mark, 82,

1AHM, AN02, etc., and at the transition to a new page or

leaf. The omission of a piece of the text of various length by

homoioteleuton is as common, and is more serious.2 Anycritical apparatus will show the frequency of its occurrence.

We often find there the note "a voce alterutra .... ad

1 A good example is seen in Ezek. xvi. 3. In the Sixtine edition of 1586 a newpage (692) occurs in the middle of the sentence lianaprvpov ttj ItpovauXiJH rat

avofitas avriis rait \tytt Kvpios rrj Upov<ra\-Tjti, with the result that the eight words

from the first ltpovaa\i)p to the second are printed twice by a recessive homoio-

teleuton, while in Codex 62 they have dropped out altogether owing to a forward

error of the same sort. The former mistake is tacitly corrected in all reprints, but

the latter could not be detected from the context alone without other testimony.

Compare also Mark ix. 10 in codex T of the Vulgate and ff of the Old Latin. In

the former the passage from rcsitrrexil to rtsurrexil is repeated, in the latter it

is omitted.8

I had a teacher once who invariably tried to get over any difficulty in the

Greek classics by saying that the text was corrupted by homoioteleuton. We did

not always agree with him ; he was perhaps a little too ready with this way out of

a difficulty, but any one with experience knows how very apt this mistake is to

occur.

236 CREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 237

altcrutram desunt" or " a voce 1° ad vocem 2"(3 ) transilit,''

or " vox .... alterutra et intermedia desunt." Coin-

pare, e.g., Codex D, Matt, xviii. 18 from yij? t0 7^> x - 2 3 >

xxiii. 14-16. The result is worst when the mistake is not

discovered till afterwards and the two fragments are patched

together in some way with more or less success. Lacuna:

that have not been doctored are very helpful in determining

the relationship between different texts. 1

Confusion. (3) As errors of the tongue and the memory 2 rather than

of the eye may be reckoned the Transposition and Confusion

of particular combinations of letters or entire words. Theformer occurs so frequently in connection with a liquid, that

in some cases it ceases to be a mistake. Thus we have on

the one hand the confusion of tcopicoSeiXos with KpoKoSeiXot,

JLapxiSwv with Carthago, and on the other, e/3uXov with eXafiov,

fiijBapaftu with fttfiajiupa, John i 28 ; Kipmirto with Kpiverio,

•kovtov with ronrov, pro, talent, Matt. xxv. 14-30, with p-o,

cities, Luke xix. 17, 19. Akin to this is the confusion of

vowels with a similar sound, to which are to be ascribed all

cases of itacism, as it is called

—

eyeipe and tyeipai, —ecrOe and—ecrdai, eraipoii and erepoif, \p>](TTO<! 6 Kvpios and xpio-ro? o

Kuptos, 2 Cor. xii. 1 ; (jwpeaoo/uLev and <j>opeaopev, t\oip.€v and

e'Xo/n.(i; Rom. v. I; p.eru Stwyp.a>v and p.era Siwyp.6v- Mani-

festly mistakes of this sort would occur more readily in dicta-

tion than in copying.

A third class of errors of a more conscious or semi-conscious

description is due to the substitution of words or forms of

similar meaning. Thus, for Xtyet we may have eiire or ecf>n or

a-wiKplvaTo, or the simple form may be replaced by the com-pound or vice versa, or one preposition may be substituted for

1 This applies to printed editions as well as to manuscripts. Van Ess's reprint

of the Sixtine Septuagint (1824) is very carefully done, yet five words have droppedout in Joel iii. 9. These are omitted in all the later editions uf 1S35, 1855 (novis

curis correcta), 1868, and 1879, and Here oidy supplied by myself in 1887 on the

occasion of the third centenary of the Sixtine edition. They are omitted in

TisrhendorPs first edition of 1850, and also in the second of 1856.-' In ancient limes people always read aloud, even when reading hy themselves.

another. 1 Separate words are very frequently transposed

without seriously affecting the sense. Thus, in Acts iv. 12,

we find nearly all the possible permutations of the three

words ovofia eo-nv erepov actually represented—viz., in addi-

tion to this (2) ovop.a erepov eerriv; (3) erepov ovopa eerriv ; (4)

eo-rtv erepov ovop.a; (5) ecrriv ovona erepov.2 On Luke xvn. IO,

Merx says (Die vier kanonischen Evangelicn, p. 246) :" Let it

be observed that the position of ixpeioi fluctuates between

(1) SovXot axpeiol eap-ev ; (2) SovXol ecrpev axpeioi D, and

(3) Lxptioi SovXol etrjuev. Such fluctuations are due to the

different arrangement of a word that did not originally

belong to the text, but was appended as a note and after-

1 Scrivener would explain the "remarkable confusion" of the two prepositions

rpo and jrpocr, when compounded with verbs, which we meet e.g. in Matt,

xxvi. 39; Mark xiv. 35; Acts xii. 6; xvii. 5, 26; xx. 5, 13; xxii. 25, by saying that

the symbol r4A is used indifferently for rpc and wpocr in the Herculanean rolls, and

here and there in Codex Sinaiticus. Seeing that it has become a bad habit in

Hebrew Grammars to speak of Aleph proslhetieum instead of protheticum, and

that the practice is still defended (Gesenius-Kaulzsch91, p. 64, n. 3, "rightly

so ") after my notice of it (Marginalien, p. 67), I have given some little attention to

this confusion, and could cite dozens of examples. Others, of course, have noticed

it as well as myself. In his N. T., i. 20, B. Weiss says : "The compounds with

irpo and tpoa are interchanged quite heedlessly,'' and he cites in proof of this

eight passages from the Acts. He writes similarly in ii. 34. I shall instance only

one or two cases in connection with this same word lrpJliais. Pilra on Apost.

Const., 5, 17 (p. 32S) : *p°<) t<">' restituimuscum Vatican. 2, 3, 4, 5, vulgo vpitrSt atv ;

Excerpta n#pl T\a8a>v, cd. R. Schneider (Programme of Diiisdurg, 1895), where the

manuscripts deviate in five passages, pp. 5, 14. 20 ; 6, 5 ; 13, 7. 13, and we read

in § 10, AvTiKtiTai !i tp6aitais piv bQatptott, etc., and in § II, irpiaStait pie

oiv rftrrl irpofffl^KTj trrotxttov kot' apxfoi olov trraipis, kara<pls Kal oaraipls. Both

times, of course, it should \x upABfois, as the belter manuscripts have it.

Wherever mention is made of the "shew bread," D invariably turns it into "extra

bread," by reading npondtotvs instead of irpoOfVccu*. Tischendorf first called

attention to this in Luke vi. 4, but it occurs also in Matt. xii. 4. I have no doubt

myself that in the case of verbal forms, the a was inserted in. order to avoid the

hiatus l>cfore ihe augment. Compare npoiridijKtv for irpot$r)Ktv, Ex. xxiv. 23 ;

KpoatBi}H(t$, Ps. lxxxix. 8, Symmachus ; wpoav*0tnriv or wpoatwtditnjv. Gal. i. 16.

In Wisdom, vii. 27, the first hand of Sinaiticus even writes irpocr^iiToj for

prophets. It is disputed whether the title of one uf Philo's books is irpo-Kaihivfiara

or irpbj [to] iraiSf u/iaTa. Etc. etc. Sapientl Silt.

- We find all the possible permutations of the words aiirols t\i\ijatv & 'Iqaovi in

John viii. 12. See my note on Codex Purpureus Petropolitanus (N) in Hilgen-

feld's Zeitsihriftfur wissensi haftliche Theoh^ie, 42 (1 899), p. 623.

238 CREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. Ill,

wards incorporated with the text. Such fluctuations point to

the interpolation of the fluctuating word." This judgmenthas to be accepted with caution. For one thing, it is not at

all clear which word it is that fluctuates. In this particular

case, one might say that SovXoi fluctuates as much as axpeioi,

and the copula still more. Moreover such an interpolation

becomes at once an integral part of the text, and its insertion is

no longer visible. Only if several copies were made of that

exemplar in which the interpolation was first introduced

could fluctuation of this sort originate. Such transpositions

are much more frequently of a harmless order, as each one

may perceive for himself. The writer's thoughts fly faster

than his pen and anticipate a word that should not come in

till later. One of the most frequent cases of transposition is

that of 'Iqcrous XpitTTos and Xpicrros 'lqcrous in the Pauline

Epistles.

Additions. (4) Akin to this last is a class of mistakes originating in

the border region between the unconscious and the conscious

or intentional—viz. that of Additions. One can readily

understand how easy it was to insert a Kvptos or !> Ki'ptos

r/fjiwv, a fjiov after ira-nip on the lips of Jesus, the subject at

the beginning of a sentence, especially of the first sentence

of a pericope, or the object in the form of a pronoun.

Bengel proposed to omit the name of Jesus in some twenty-

five places, for which he was ridiculed by Wettstein, as maybe learned from my work on Bengel, p. 74. Now, everyone

admits that Bengel was right. Under the head of "Inter-

polationes breviores," Wordsworth and White first give

examples "de nomine Jesus," then of "Christus, Dominus,

Deus," and then of " Pronomina." It is evident that in this

way the wrong word may be supplied now and again.

Perhaps one of the most interesting cases is Luke i 46.

All our present Greek witnesses make Mary the composer

of the Magnificat, but Elisabeth's name is attached to it in

three Old Latin manuscripts, in the Latin version of Irenaeus,

according to the best manuscripts, and in some manuscripts


known to Origen (or to his translator, Jerome: the passage,

unfortunately, is found as yet only in the Latin). 1

(5) To the category of conscious alterations belong first

of all grammatical corrections, then assimilations to parallel Corrections,

passages, liturgical changes introduced from the Evangeliaria,

as, e.g., the addition at the close of a pericope of the words

o tywv ">Ta oKoveTw which occurs in all sorts of manuscripts in

the most diverse passages, or indications of time, such as iv

tw Kcupw e/ceiVoi at the beginning of a pericope,2 and lastly,

alterations made for dogmatic reasons, if any such can be

established. It is impossible to deny that dogmatic concep-

tions had some influence on the propagation of certain read-

ings if not on their origin—as, e.g., on the form assumed by

the words in Matt xix. 17, rl fie Xeyei? a-yaOov, or on the

omission of the words ovSe 6 w'dy in Mark xiii. 22 ; compare

also above, p. 106. On the whole, however, there is no real

ground for the scepticism that was for a time entertained with

respect to our texts in this connection. A sober criticism

will be able in most cases to restore the correct form. Its

conditions will be apparent from what has been said in the

foregoing.

Gerhard von Maestricht laid down forty-three Critical Canons of

Canons, and Wettstein set forth in his New Testament his

Animadversiones et Cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum

Novi Testamenti necessariae (vol. ii. 851-874). In 1755 J. D.

Michaelis added to his Curae in versionem Syriacam Act.

Apost. his Consectaria critica de ... usu versionis Syriacae

tadu/arum Novi Foederis.3 Bengel reduced all the rules to a

single one. Quite recently Wordsworth and White compre-

1 See Harnack, Das Magnificat der Elisabeth (Lukas i. 46-55) in the Berliner

Sitzimgsberiihtc of the 17th May 1900, p. 538 ff. A good example of how glosses

may creep into-the text is afforded by Philo " Quod det." II (Cohn, I, 266).

* On the influence of a system of pericopne on the text of Codex D, see

Scrivener's Introduction to his edition of the manuscript, p. Ii, and Zahn, Einl.,

"• 355-3 See Semler's edition of J. J. Wctsteinii libclli ad crisin atque interfreta-

tionem N.J',, Ha be, 1766. m

240 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. THEORY AND PRAXIS. 241

bended the rules they followed in the preparation of the text

of their Latin New Testament in four sentences. Of these

the first two apply to a version only, and therefore do not

concern us here ;* while the fourth {brevior lectio probabilior)

is but another form of Bengel's canon. The third alone maybe regarded as new and deserving of attention— viz., vera

lectio ad finem victoriam reportat. That is to say, if a phrase

is repeated in several passages in the same or similar terms,

and displays variants in the earlier passages, the reading of

the later passage will, as a rule, be the correct one, the

reason being that copyists are apt to consider a certain

reading to be an error the first time it occurs, and therefore

to alter it, but come in the end to admit it as correct.

I would once more briefly emphasize the following pro-

positions :

—

(1) The text of our manuscripts must not be regarded

as homogeneous, but must be examined separately

for each part of the New Testament. A manuscript

that exhibits a very good text in one book does not

necessarily do the same in the others. The samething holds good of versions and quotations.

(2) The text is preserved with less alteration in the

versions than in the manuscripts. 2

(3) In the Gospels that reading is the more probable

which differs from that of the parallel passages.

(4) The influence of the ecclesiastical use of the Scrip-

tures on the text must be more carefully attended

to than heretofore. 2

1 (I) Lectin quae in veteribus latinis non apparel probabilior est. (2) Codicesqui cum graecis N B L concordant plerumque textum Hieronymianum osten-

diint.

2 In view of the frequency with which the witnesses fluctuate between ^w andifiiy, riti'm and in'tv, etc., it is impossible to adjust their claims on any merearithmetical principle. Zahn (Eiii/., ii. 61) calls attention to an important con-sideration in support of the reading vfiiv in 2 Peter i. 4, which applies to otherpassages as well—viz., " that when the New Testament epistles were read at divineservice, finiU would very readily and very frequently be substituted for until, which

CHAP. III.]

(5) One of the most valuable aids in estimating the

importance of the witnesses is the proper names,

particularly those of less frequent occurrence.

(6)" Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua."

Of these propositions only the last two need be illustrated proper

further, particularly the second last. For it is really remark-

able to what extent this consideration has been neglected

hitherto. To the best of my knowledge there is as yet no

monograph in which the proper names are treated from a

critical point of view. And yet these are for the critic fre-

quently the only points of light in vast regions of darkness.

They are to him what the lighthouse is to the mariner or the

fossil to the geologist. This makes their neglect all the more

strange. Had there been a systematic examination of the

proper names of the New Testament, Lippelt's important

discovery with regard to the spellings 'Iwavns and 'Iwuvvn?

might have been made long ere now (see above, p. 162 f.).

Weiss's critical studies in Acts deserve honourable mention

in this connection. But Westcott and Hort, who have paid

attention to these things with their usual exactitude, were

excluded the reader or preacher." Compare Acts iv. 12 : iv 5 S«> ffiuflr/i'oi—

,

ijfias or ufias?

It might be laid down as a second rule in this connection, that particular

importance attaches to those versions in which the distinction of the persons does

not depend simply on a single letter but on a separate word (nobis : vobis, etc.). In

versions of this sort the original reading is preserved from the first ; in the case of

the others, the change could be made at any point of the transmission, especially

when it was helped by the nature of the writing, which must also, of course, be

taken into account.

A glance over the verse enumeration in the margin of one of the modern

editions of the text will reveal, perhaps, most clearly how strong is the tendency

to interpolation. Of the verses into which Stephen divided the Greek N.T.

(1551), the Stuttgart edition omits entirely the following from the Synoptic

Gospels—\iz., Matt, xviii. 11 (xxi. 44, TUchen.), xxiii. 14 J Mark vii. 16;

ix. 44, 46; xi. 26; xv. 28; Luke xvii. 36 (xxi. 18, W-H margin); xxiii. 17

(xxiv. 12, 40, Tisch.). Compare also Matt. xx. 28; xxvii. 35, 38, 49; Markvi. II ; xiii 2 ; Luke vi. 5 ; ix. 55 ; xii. 21 ; xix. 45 ; xxi. 38 ; xxii. 19!., 43 I., 47 ;

xxiii. 2, 5, 34, 48, 53 ; xxiv. 5, 36, 51, 52. In the case of several verses this or

that part had to be omitted. Luke' xx. 30, e.g., is reduced to the three words,

ital i S<vT«por, with the result that it becomes the shortest verse in the N.T.

Q


simply on the wrong tack in this case when they asked

whether the various persons who bore this name might not

have spelt it differently, as in the case of Smith, Smyth,

Smythe, etc. Similarly the genealogies give rise to a whole

host of problems of which no account has been taken hitherto.

See above, p. 165, for the reading Zape exhibited by B in

Matt. i. 3 ; and compare Sela, given by Syr5 '" in verses 4 and 5,

with 2aXa in Luke iii. 32. Tischendorf omits the testimony

in Matt. i. 5, while Baljon passes over both the variants,

though they are certainly of more importance than the varia-

tion in the spelling of Boe'y, Boo'y, Boo'f. In Luke iii. 27 the

word NK'tn is converted into a proper name 'Pijo-a. From this

fact some very interesting conclusions might be drawn with

regard to the sources of Luke's Gospel, but this is a matter

lying outside the scope of this chapter. On the other hand,

the fact that in the fourth Gospel the traitor is called not

'laKuptwTin, or anything like it, but utto Kapvutrov by a in

ch. vi. 71, where his name first occurs, and by D in every

other place in that Gospel (xii. 4 ; xiii. 2, 26 ; xiv. 22), raises a

very strong presumption in favour of these two manuscripts

and indeed of the fourth Gospel. On this see my Philo-

logica Sacra, p. 14, and my notes, with Chase's unconvincing

replies, in the Expository Times for December 1897, and

January, February, and March 1898. I am very glad to see

that Zahn now inclines to the same view {Einl., ii. 561).

Considerable weight is given to it by the fact that these twomanuscripts seem to be the only ones that have preserved the

correct reading in the case of other names as well.

What is Apollos called in Acts ? He is mentioned by Donly in ch. xviii. 24, where he is called 'kiroWwvios. x* calls

him 'A-ireXX^? in xviii. 24 and xix. I. This reading is sup-

ported in the former passage by the minuscules 15 and 180,

and in the latter by 180 alone. Wendt now agrees with

Blass in thinking it probable that the original form in Actswas 'AweWiji, which was altered in the main body of manu-scripts in conformity with 1 Corinthians, just as utto Kapvdrov

CHAP. Ill THEORY AND PRAXIS. 243

in John was accommodated to 'la-Kapuorrn given by the

Synoptics. But what about D ? I must ask with Salmon. Even

Weiss says in this connection (Codex D, p. 18): "The most

that can be said for'AnoWwtos is that this form, differing as

it does from that prevailing in the Pauline Epistles, has the

presumption of originality, seeing that there was always a

temptation for the scribes to accommodate it to the latter." 1

In his earlier work on the text (p. 9) he seems not to have

considered this point.

I cannot understand how Weiss could at first explain

'IwvdOas, which is found in D (Acts iv. 6) in place of 'lwdv(v)t}S

read by the other witnesses, as a " clerical error," whereas now

(Cod. D, p. 108) he deems it more natural to suppose that a

corrector inserted the name of the son of Annas and the

successor of Caiaphas mentioned by Josephus (Antiq. xviii. 4, 3)

in place of that of the entirely unknown John, than that

the name of Jonathan, even supposing it was unknown to the

copyist, which applies equally to that of Alexander mentioned

along with him, was replaced by John, which was a very

common name, the name of the Apostle so frequently

mentioned before. It could, therefore, be only a purely

accidental clerical error. Headlam, in his article on John

(Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, ii. 676) seems to know

nothing of all this. But perhaps Weiss sees on the same page

of the aforesaid book that the mistake of Johanan and

Jonathan occurred elsewhere also, and remembering Bengel's

principle, considers that 'laWflac is the script'io ardiia, and,

therefore, the praestantior?

In 2 l'eter ii. 15 the father of Balaam is called Motrop,

which is quite peculiar. Westcott and Hort and Weiss, in

their fondness for B, write Bewp. But this is most certainly

1 The best discussion of the form 'AwfMrjj will again lie found in Zahn, Einl.,

i »93-

- See my note in ihe Expository Times fur July 1900, p. 478, where I have brought

forward a new witness for the reading Jonatha— viz., Jerome's Liber interpnta-

lionis Hcbraicorum nomiuwn. He explains the word as "to/iwiba dans vel

cohimha icniens."

a correction which is combined with the original to form

ftetopcrop in x. The only thorough discussion of the passage

that I know is in Zahn's Einleitung, ii. 109. The only thing

that might be added to his data in the LXX. is that, accord-

ing to Holmes-Parsons, the Georgian version has uiov toi"

/3o<ro'p in Jos. xiii. 22. 'EeTr<fiwp, as the name of Beor, has

crept into various manuscripts in several places from Jos.

xxiv. 9

—

e.g. into the Armenian in Gen. xxxvi. 32, Codex 18 in

Num. xxii. 5, Codex 53 in Num. xxiv. 15, where Cod. 75 has

Se/3e<op, and into Lucian in 1 Chr. i 43. There seems to meto be a confusion between Gen. xxxvi. 32 ( = 1 Chr. i. 43)and the following verse, in which Bosra occurs. In Gen.

xxxvi. 33 one manuscript observes, ij /Wop iro'Atc t»k 'Apa/8/ac

>) vvv KaXovfieitj fido-pa.. Jerome also renders "ex Bosor." 1

Boo-o'p also occurs as the name of a place in Deut. iv. 43 ;

1 Sam. xxx. 9 ; I Mace. v. 26. On this last passage see

ZdPV., 12, 51; 13, 41. For other interpretations (Hebrewpronunciation of the Aramaic mine)" see Pole's Synopsis on

2 Peter ii. 15.

It is worth observing that minuscule 81 displays a close

agreement with B in other places as well as this.

On the names in the catalogue of the Apostles, see Zahn,

Einl., ii. 263 ; on 'lepova-akij/j. a.nd'Iepo<r6\up.a, ii. 310 ; on Jesus

Barabbas, ii. 294; on Barachias in Matt, xxiii. 35, i. 454,ii. 308. On the confusion between Isaiah and Asaph in Matt,

xiii. 35, and between Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Isaiah in other

passages, compare Ambrosiaster's note on 1 Cor. ii. 9 cited

above, p. 148.

" He who seeks in the wild fir wood, will still find many a cudgel good."

1 Volck has an article of four and a half pages on Balaam in the PRE9, iii. 227 ff.,

hut he says not a syllable about the form Boo6p, which is too bad. In Hastings'

Dictionary of the Bible it is at least mentioned though not explained.

- ijn is explained as the Hebrew form of the Aramaic Til'3 by C. B. Michaelis

(De Pa> onomasia, § 30) ; Hiller, Onomas/icitm, 1706, p. 536 j and Bernardus (in

Marck, In praecipuas qnasdam partes Pentateitchi Coiiimentarius , Leyden,

1713, 366). Marck himself makes it the equivalent of lino. M. M. Kalish, Bible

Studies, i. The prophecies of Bileam, London, 1877, contributes nothing to the

solution of the question.

The rule that the shorter text is the more original is a Textus

subdivision of Bengel's canon. It is specially the case when"

two longer forms are opposed to it which are mutually ex-

clusive and whose origin can be explained from the shorter.

As examples of this Zahn adduces, in addition to the double

conclusion of Mark's Gospel, the following :

—

John vi. 47 : Tn<rTetW, n B L T, + " in God," Syrcu. sin, + («V

fVACDTAAIlJohn vii. 39 : vveS/ia, X K T II, + ayiov L X T A A, + SeSo-

fi€vov it vgde, + ayiov eir' avroh, D f goth, + ayiov SeSofievov,

B 254 Syrs'n. hark.. . .

James v. 7 : irpoip.ov, B 31, pr. vtrov A K L P, pr. napirov x

9 ff etc.

It is equally clear that a reading is incorrect which proves

to be a mixture of two others (conflate readings). The re-

spective claims of these others must be adjudged on other

considerations. Thus we have

—

Luke xxiv. 53 : atvouvres, D a b e.

evXoyovvres, x B C* L.

atvouvret Kai euAoyoui/TCf, A C 2 X T A A II.

etJAoyoi/iTef Kai aivovvrcs, Ethiop.

Acts vi. 8 : TrXqpw x^P'toc, sABD,irXt'lplJ! TTt<TT€Wt, H P.

ttX))/)»j9 \dpiTOi Kai 7n'o-Tea>c, E.

In general that reading will have the best claim to origin-

ality which stands first in the combination. Further illustra-

tions are unnecessary.

In order to fulfil the promise of the title of this chapter, the

foregoing exposition of the Theory of New Testament criticism

should be succeeded by a further part dealing with its Praxis.

Such a part would contain particular illustrations of the wayin which the criticism of the text has been handled by our

authorities hitherto and the way in which it must be treated

in accordance with the foregoing principles. The following

notes do not and cannot claim to be a complete fulfilment of

246 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [chap. iu.

this great task, more especially as in the preceding part we

were unable to arrive at a finished system of textual criticism.

I have therefore contented myself witli bringing together a

series of passages of interest from a critical point of view. In

doing so I have freely drawn upon Zahn's Introduction. For

this I feel sure the reader will thank me, while at the same

time I trust that the author will pardon the liberty I have taken.

I have made use, as far as possible, of the additional material

afforded by editions later than those of Tischendorf and West-

cott and Hort, particularly of the Sinai-Syriac. This collec-

tion may therefore serve in some degree to supplement our

commentaries, which, though their merits in other directions

are to be freely conceded, still leave much to be desired in

the matter of textual criticism. A purely critical commentary

on the New Testament is a great desideratum. The follow-

ing notes are to be regarded not as the commencement of

such a work, but simply as a stimulus thereto. I myself felt

it to be a defect in the small Stuttgart edition of the NewTestament that want of space obliged me to omit all refer-

ences to the origin and significance of the various readings

selected from manuscripts. For many of these an Annotatio

Critica in an Appendix like that in the larger edition of

v. Gebhardt would scarcely have been sufficient. Whatinformation, e.g., would it have imparted to a reader to have

given the numbers of the two minuscules 346, 556 after the

reading in Matt. i. 16? What he needs is an Apparatus

Criticus or a Commentarius Criticus such as Hengel appended

to his edition, or like that which Burk published separately

in his second issue. Ed. Miller has promised to give us one

for the Gospels, only it will proceed on principles which very

few of us will be able to accept.

CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES OF

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

THE GOSPEL.

Matthew.

WITH regard to the title, Westcott and Hort say (Introduction,

6 423 p 321): "In prefixing the name EYAITEAION in

the singular to the quaternion of 'the Gospels,' we have

wished to supply the antecedent which alone gives an .

adequate sense to the preposition RATA in the several titles.

The idea, if not the name, of a collective ' Gospel'is implied

throughout the well-known passage in the third book of

Irenajus, who doubtless received it from earlier generations.

It evidently preceded and produced the commoner usage by

which the term Gospel denotes a single written representation

of the one fundamental Gospel." Compare Zahn, GK., i. 106 ff.

;

Ein/eitung, ii. 172 ff., 178 f. :" Of recent editors, Westcott and

Hort have most faithfully interpreted the original idea by

setting EvayyeXiov on the fly-leaf, and Kara Uaddatov, etc.,

over the separate books/' I have followed the same principle

in the Table of Contents prefixed to the Stuttgart edition of

the New Testament. Compare above, pp. 164, 165. On the

spelling Ma00«<"oy, instead of Mcn-0a?oy, compare on the one

hand the LXX. manuscripts, which exhibit the forms UaOavul,

M«00awa, Marflawa ; Ma-rraOi'ay, MaT0a0i'ar, Ma00a0<'«y (see

Supplement I. to Hatch and Redpath's Concordance to the

248 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [MATT.

Septnagint), and on the other, Blass's Grammatik des neutesta-

mentlichen Gricchisch, § 3, 1 1 (English Trans, by Thackeray,

1898, p. 11).

i. 16. There are three forms of the text here

—

(i) Iwar]</> rov avSpu Map/a?, e£ j)c eyevvi'fit] 'I»j<rouc o

Xeyofifvof XpKTToi : all our Greek uncials and almost all the

minuscules.

(2) 'lwo-T)</>, w fxvtj(mvQel<Ta irapBcvos Napia eyevvrjcrev tov'h)(Toiif (tov Xeyoixevov) XpttrTov: most of the Old Latin(a d g1

k q, with b c similarly), Curetonian Syriac, Armenian,and four minuscules—viz., 346, 556, 624, 626, with slight

divergencies.

(3) 'loicrr/gi- 'Iwah'P Se, <o fiirjaTeudeia-a (or fxe/xviio-Teu/xevt] ?) qvwapdevos Mupla, eyevvn&ev tov 'h/crovv Xpitrrov : the form under-lying the newly-discovered Sinai-Syriac. 1

These readings are discussed in the " Additional Note " toAT

otes on Select Readings, Westcott and Hort, Introduction

(1896), p. 140 ff. Reading (2) is dismissed on externalgrounds as displaying the characteristic features of the" Western "' type of text. Reading (3) is regarded as inde-pendent of (2), neither confirming it nor confirmed by it.

Taken therefore on its own merits, it must yield to thereceived text (1), as it is easier to suppose that (3) is derivedfrom ( 1 ) than vice versa.

Zahn goes fully into these various forms (Einleitttng, ii.

291-293). He begins by saying that it is impossible, excepton a very loose view of the facts, to conclude that the Sinai-Syriac here preserves the original text, which was graduallydisplaced for dogmatic reasons by the modified form pre-sented in (2), and ultimately by that given in (1). On thecontrary, the Curetonian-Syriac preserves an early form oftext, and one that had a pretty wide circulation, so that it

cannot be due to an orthodox alteration of the Sinai-Syriac.

1 See Mrs. Lewis, in the Expository Times, November 1900, p. 56 ff., Whathave we gained in the Sinaitie Palimpsest, I. St. Matthew's Gospel, where anumber of important variants are cited from that manuscript.

MATT.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 249

"If it be the case that the latter, like the former, is derived

from a Greek original, and that these two earliest versions of

the ' Distinct ' Gospel are not independent of each other but

are two recensions of a single version, then it follows that the

recension which agrees exactly with a demonstrably old

Greek text (in this case the Curetonian Syriac) preserves the

original form of the Syriac version ; while, on the other hand,

the one which deviates from all the Greek, Latin, and other

forms of the transmitted text (in this case the Sinai-Syriac)

is derived from the other by a process of intentional altera-

tion. " There would be nothing to object to this reasoning

were it not that, as it seems to me, there is a flaw in the

second of the premises stated above, which of course vitiates

the conclusion. In the main, it is true that the Sinai-Syriac

and the Curetonian are not independent, but two recensions

of a single version, but their common original was, as Zahn

himself was the first to suggest, Tatian's Diatessaroh, which

did not contain the first chapter of Matthew's Gospel. So

that the Sinai-Syriac may also go back to a Greek text (such

as has been discovered in the Dialogue of Timothy andAquila, see above, p. 99), and be earlier than the' Curetonian.

Zahn concludes his examination of this passage by saying :

" We may give up all hope of finding in early manuscripts

and versions any indication that Joseph was regarded as the

natural father of Jesus by the writers of lost Gospels whichmay have been employed in the composition of the canonical

Matthew and Luke. A writer like Matthew, whose purposewas to silence the calumnies raised against the miraculous

birth of the Messiah, and who knew how to utilise the smallest

details of an intractable genealogy to this end, cannot at

the same time have accepted in his narrative statementsdirectly contradicting his view of that occurrence. Anytext of Matthew's Gospel containing such features wouldbe pre-condemned as one that had been tampered with in

a manner contrary to the conception of the author."

i. 18. The reading yeVeo-tc is now supported by the newly-

discovered Oxyrhynchus Papyrus. It was adopted in the

text by Vignon (Geneva, 1574). Origen knew no other read-

ing than yei'irxrn, which is also attested by L (Codex D is

defective here). Westcott and Hort have accordingly given

it a place in their Appendix. Weiss explains it as an altera-

tion made in conformity with the verbal forms eye'wijue,

eyewi')Bi), occurring in the previous part of the chapter. Zahn(Einieitung, ii. 270, 289) thinks it is probably original. Thetwo oldest and the latest Syriac have a different word here

from that in i 1. These agree with Irenaeus in the omission

of 'Itjcrov. Zahn thinks this is probably correct.

i. 25. On -rrpwroTOKov, see above, p. 166, and the Oxford

Debate, p. 4 ff.

v. 25. On avTiStKos = xyibvi, see Lagarde, De Novo, 20 (Ges.

Abhdl., 188); quern Matthaei locum quum imitaretur et rideret

Lucianus in Navigio 35, avriSiicos non fe'rebat : ?a>? en ku6' <>S6v

eiaiv 01 TroXf/iioi, tirixeipwuev avroi?.

vi. 1. Sikuio<t(ivi}v, N" B D Syr9'": eXeijjuocrt/Kiji', most authorities :

Somv K* :" your gifts," Syr"' Zahn (Einl., ii. 311) asks whether

these variants may not go back to a time when the AramaicGospel was interpreted orally in these different ways? Theagreement exhibited between Ka and Syr11

' is particularly

strange.

vi. 13. There is a considerable amount of unanimity nowwith regard to the doxology which used to be so much dis-

cussed. Among the witnesses supporting its insertion are

Syr1", which, however, omits koi 17 8uvafxi$, and the Sahidic,

which omits kui 17 S6£a. Syr5'" is unfortunately lost here. In

addition to the testimony previously known for the insertion

of the Doxology, there is now that of the Teaching of tlie

Apostles, one of the earliest Church writings. But the very

fact that the Teaching is a Church work reveals the source ol

the Doxology—viz. liturgical use. The Conclusion was early

added in Church worship from Old Testament analogies ; in

the First Gospel it is out of place. The Greek manuscripts

from which Jerome made his version knew nothing of it, and


accordingly the Catholic Church omits it to this day. Luther

also passed it over in his Catechism, in which the exposition

of the Conclusion is limited to the word " Amen," and says, " it

is added that I may have the assurance that my prayer will

be heard." In the Greek Church the Amen was explained

as equivalent to yevono, " so may it be."

viii. 7. Fritzsche (1826) took this verse as a question of sur-

prise. This view has been renewed by Zahn {Einl., ii. 307).

viii. 24. The words " erat enim ventus contrarius eis," which

are found in one manuscript of the Vulgate in W-W after

" mari," and in four after " fluctibus," are an interpolation from

Mark vi. 48. Tischendorf cites two Greek minuscules in sup-

port of it. Lagarde's Vienna Arabic manuscript (see p. 143)

mentions it as an addition of the " Roman " version.

xi. 19. Schlottman and Lagarde explain the variation be-

tween tpya and rexva as a confusion of the Aramaic *"W (ser-

vant: irafc) and tn?I> (work). See Zahn, Einl., ii. 31 1 f., and

compare also Salmon, Some Thoughts etc., p. 121 f. It is

still to be shown, however, that rexva is ever used as the

equivalent of *1?V. Hilgenfeld (ZfwTh., 42. 4, ,p. 629) refers

to 4 Esdras vii. 64 (134), where the Latin and the first Arabic

version read ' quasi suis operibus" the Ethiopic " quasi filiis

suis," and the Syriac " quia semi eius sumus."

xii. 36. See on xviii. 7.

xiii. 35. diu 'Haa'tou rod irpo<j>T)TOv is now attested only by

N*, two members of the Ferrar group, and some other

minuscules, but Eusebius and Jerome found it in several

manuscripts, and it was used still earlier by Porphyrius as a

proof of Matthew's ignorance. It is certainly, therefore,

genuine, although it is omitted by Syr"n, Syrc

", by the

" accurate " manuscripts according to Eusebius,1 and by the

"vulgata editio" according to Jerome. The conjecture of

the latter, that 'Acrdtp was the original reading, which was

changed to 'Kcraiov by some unintelligent copyist and then

dropped as incorrect, only serves to show what sort of ideas

1 Corderius (Catcn. Pml., ii. 631) substitutes "ancient" for "accurate."

he had with regard to textual criticism. The assertion of the

Breviarium in Psalmos, p. 59 f, that all the old manuscriptsread " in Asaph propheta '•

is pure fiction. Compare 'Upe/ilov

in Matt, xxvii. 9, where one would expect Za\apiov, andwhere we find that 'Upefilov is omitted by some witnesses

and replaced in others by Zaxaptou or " Esaiam." " Esaiam "

has also crept into the Vulgate manuscript rus (W-W's R).

On the insertion, omission, and interchange of such names,see W-H's discussion of this passage, and the "Supple-mentary Note" by Burkitt on Syrsln

in the edition of 1896,

p. 143. For an interesting exchange of names (Jonah andNahum), see Tobit, xiv. 8. Asaph is called 6 irpofo'rrw in

2 Chron. xxix. 30. Compare Zahn, EinL, it. 313 f Weiss9

would omit the word on the ground of insufficient testimony as

being simply introduced from Hi. 3, iv. 14, viii. 17, and xii. 17.

xiv. 3. Zahn {EinL, ii. 309) thinks it extremely improbablethat D and certain important Latin witnesses should haveremoved the (wrong) name, Philip, from this passage on the

ground of their better knowledge, while allowing it to standwithout exception in Mark vi. 17. He believes rather thatthey have preserved the original text, and that 4>«X(Wov is

here an interpolation from the passage in Mark. Weiss9,

on the other hand, sees no reason why it should be either

bracketed or omitted. The possibility of its being inserted

is shown by the fact that it also crept into six or sevenmanuscripts of Jerome, collated by W-W. This is one ofthe passages where Tischendorf in his seventh edition franklypreferred Codex D to all the other Greek witnesses.

xv. 4b. For Oapdrw TeXevrdrw, Syrou has Supnj, evidently in

accordance with Exod. xxi. 17. In the Arabic Diatessaron

(§ 2°. 2 3) tne second half of this verse seems to be replacedby Mark vii. 106. After " morte moriatur" in this passage,Ephraem adds " et qui blasphemat Deum cnicifigatiir," whichZahn {Forsch., i 157) thinks he must have found in hisoriginal. This apocryphal addition, which has no othertestimony than that of Ephraem, does not seem to Zahn like


a passage that had been afterwards removed from the text of

the New Testament with complete success {Forsch., i. 241).

The correct explanation of the words is given by Harris

:

they are the Peshitto rendering of Deut. xxi. 23. Compare

Driver's Deuteronomy on the passage, and the reference there

made to Lightfoot's Galatians (Extended Note on iii. 13,

ninth edition, p. 152 f.). Symmachus also renders the words :

'propter blasphemiam Dei suspensus est," while Onkelos

issays 3'Sbxx " mp am hp, and Siphre own nx bhpv ':'30. Th

should be noted in connection with Matt. xxvi. 65, and still

more so with John xix. 7. The only passage usually cited

there is Levit. xxiv. 16, according to which Jesus should have

been stoned. Our commentators pass too hastily over the

question why the Jews insisted on crucifixion instead of

stoning.

xvi. i8p, 19. So far as the criticism of the text is concerned,

there is no occasion for entering on the discussion whether

this passage, like the one resembling it in xviii. 15-18, is

original or not. There may, however, be cases in which one

cannot overlook the fact that where the "lower" criticism

ends the "higher" begins. Compare, on the one side, Zahn,

Forsch., i. 244 ff, and on the other, Resch, Login, p. 55;

Paralleltexte, ii. 1 87-1 96, 441.

xvi. 22. The peculiar reading, " compatiens," which is found

in the Arabic Tatian (J. H. Hill, p. 137, § 23. 42 : Zahn, GK.,

ii. 546), and which Sellin has also traced in Ephraem, is now

explained by the Syr8 "1 of Mark viii. 32 : see my note in

Lewis, Some Pages, p. xiii. The very same play upon the

words Din, " to pity," and on, " to be far from," is found as late

as in the Histoire de Mar-Jabalalui, de trois autres patriarchies,

ed. Bedjan, 1895, p. 407, line 14; p. 408, line 4. For

a moment I thought of Spyio-Oels and cnrXayxvKrOtU in

Mark i 41.

xviii. 7. The Dictum Agraphum ru ayaOa e\6eiv Sec,

/uaxapio? <5e Si' o5 tpxtrai, which, according to the Clementine

Homilies (xii. 29), 6 T»jy aXi;0ei'a? Trpo<j»'p->i$ %<l>1'was known

also to Ephraem (cf. Zahn, Forscli., i. 241 f on § 50. 4). Anexact parallel to this "harmless expansion of the canonical

text" is seen in the form which Matt. xii. 36 assumed in

Codex C of the Palestinian Syriac Evangeliarium : that " for

every good word that men do not speak they shall give

account" (see Lewis, In the Shadow of Sinai (1898), pp.

256-261 ; and thereon, ThLz., 1899, col. 177).

xviii. 20. On the form in which this saying is found in the

Oxyrhynchus Logia, compare Ephraem (Moesinger 165), " ubi

unus est ibi et ego sum.'' Zahn believes that Ephraem found

this in his text, but that Aphraates, who also has it, arrived at

it by way of a " spiritual interpretation *' of the canonical words.

After quoting the comments of Aphraates on these words,

Zahn says :" It appears certain, therefore, that Aphraates

did not find in his text the apocryphal sentence given in

Ephraem, but by way of interpretation reached the samethought that Ephraem found in his text as a word of comfortspoken by Jesus to the lonely. (Ephraem introduces the

saying with the words: 'He comforted them in His saying.')

The interpretation, which may not have been original in

Aphraates, became first a gloss and then part of the text of

Tatian's Harmony." This should be noticed in connectionwith the Oxyrhynchus Logion. See Burkitt in the Introduc-tion to Barnard's Biblical Text of Clement

( Texts and Studies,

v. 5, p. xiv).

xx. 13. The peculiar form of the householder's reply givenin Syr"', M ,', aSUet fxe (Baethgen, /x>) not kottous irdpexe) is

ignored by Tischendorf. Our commentators also err in nottaking note of the variant a-vi'e^wv^d trot for rae^wijiroj

not. Compare the similar variation in John \ iii. 57 ; also

Luke xviii. 20, tu? erroXur otSa, read by the Marcionites insteadof oiotti

;and Ephes. v. 14, eTn^uuaen tov Xpto-roC, derived

through a presupposed reading, eirt^adaet troi 6 X/jiotoV~Lvve<l>wvri<Tu <rot in Matt. xx. 13 is also attested by Syr"n

,

which agrees with the common text in the first member ofthe verse. It is also found in the newly-discovered purple


manuscript in Paris. The Arabic Tatian agrees with the

usual text in both members. On the strange mixture of this

verse and Luke xvi. 25 in Petrus Siculus (eTaipt, ovk aSiKU>

<re- aireXafits tu <ra iv ry fan <rov vvv apov to aov kui

vwaye) see Zahn, GK., ii. 445.

xx. 16. The concluding member of this verse is now rightly

omitted with slILZ and the Egyptian versions. All the

Syriac versions have it, including the newly-discovered Syr"ln.

It is worth observing that the verse with this addition forms

the close of a lection in Syrhler.

xx. 28. VVestcott and Hort devote one of their " Notes on

Select Readings" to the addition to this verse, and in the

edition of 1896 Burkitt adds that it cannot have stood in

Syr* 1", because there was not room for it on the leaf that is

missing between Matt. xx. 24 and xxi. 20. According to

W-H the passage is Western, being attested by D $ amongthe Greek manuscripts and by the Latin and Syriac versions.

" The first part only, vfjteii—eivat, is preserved in m, ger, and

apparently Leo, who quotes no more ; the second part only,

eio-epXop-tvot—XP'W 01'' m ger2 anc^ apparently Hilary. Thefirst part must come from an independent source, written or

oral ; the second probably comes from the same, but it is in

substance identical with Luke xiv. 8-10." Tischendorf states

that of the Old Latin, four (f g21 q) omit the section, which,

however, is found in c d e ff,i2 g, h (m) n, two manuscripts of

the Vulgate (and. emm.), the Old German, and the Saxon.To these W-W add also the Old Latin r, two manuscriptsof the Vulgate not usually employed by them, and, of

those forming the basis of their edition, H"'s H O

—

i.e. the

Theodulfian Recension. A hand of the tenth century haswritten on the margin of O, " mirum unde istud additum :

cum Lucas parabolam de invitatis ad nuptias et primosaccubitus eligentibus decimo canone, ubi M(atthaeu)s suanon communia dicit referat." This resembles the marginalnote attached to the passage by Thomas of Heraclea (notgiven by Jos. White, but by Adler, from Cod. Assent., 1):

>5 G GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [MATT.

Haec quidem in cxemplis antiquis in Luca tantum leguntur

capite 53: inveniuntur autem in exemplis graecis 1 hoc loco

:

quapropter hie etiam a nobis adiecta sunt.

The word SenrvoKXijrwp, which Resch took from this

passage into the text of his Logia Jesu, for 6 a-e kqi avrov

KaXeaus, found in Luke xiv. 9, should itself have provoked

investigation. The only Latin witnesses which render it in a

substantive form ared, which has coenae invitator both times,

and m, which has invitator the first time. The others give it

as a relative clause (qui vocavit, invitavit), so that they mayhave read it in the form in which it stands in our present

text of Luke.2It is impossible not to believe that some

connection exists between these substantive expressions

and the Syriac srvoBTW sno, "master of the feast," whichis found in Syrcu and Syr ,in

, and is also given by Aphraates,

for tw (C£*.-Xi;/c()'t( uvtov in Luke xiv. 12 (Aphr. 388, 12-19;Zahn, Forsch., i. 85, note). Syrcu has it both times in this

passage of Matthew. 3

Bengel, like our modern expositors, says nothing of the

interpolation in his Gnomon, and his view with respect to it

1 Or "exemplo graeco." according as the plural points are inserted or not.

The passage is printed in Syriac by Cureton, p. xxxvi, who says that it is alsofound in the margin of the London manuscript of the I'eshitto, 14456. He alsogives the verses in which Juvencus paraphrases this text.

- The other variations of the Latin witnesses are extremely instructive— \iz. :

locis eminentioribus superioribus g., emni. honorificis mclarior dignior d m g2 emm. honoratior e

(leorsum inferius g., emm. infra minferior humilior minorsuperius sursum in superiori loco,

utilius utile gloriam.

This variety is an indication of the early age at which the text was translated intoLatin.

:l The Thesaurus Syriaais does not contain the word either in col. 1405 undertureen, or in col. 2205 under too.

It may also he oW-ned in passing, that the passage is one of those whosesense is entirely changed by the insertion or omission of the negative in this orthat witness (see below on Gal. ii. 5). Instead of Ka l in jitifri-os, S) rcu reads «al

^>'l Ik uttCoyos. Moii'over, it takes jVc?™ as imperative, a fact that Tischendorfhas failed to notice.

MATT.J CKITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 257

has, therefore, to be gathered from his apparatus. " Inter-

jicit cod. Lat. vetustissimus Vos autem, etc Vid. Rich.

Simon, Obs. Nonv., p. 31. Et sic fere Cant, {i.e., D) cuius

lectio passim exstat. Idem vero Codex Graeca sua ad Latina

haec, quae modo exscripsimus, confecit : Latina autem sua, submanu, vehementius interpolavit, magno argumento Iicentiae

suae. Eandem periocham legit Juvencus, Hilarius : habentquepraeterea codd. Lat. aliquot, et inde Sax. Ex. Luc. xiv. 8 (.,

interveniente forsan Evangelio Nazaraeorum .... Prioremduntaxat partem, ' Vos autem .... minui ' habet alius cod.

Lat. antiquiss. ut si Librarius, cum describere coepisset, nonscribendum agnosceret : eandemque Leo M. sic exhibet. Ettamen . . . porro ab hoc loco ad Luc. xxii. 28, verbum cres-

cendi protulit Cant, coenaeque invitator ei dicitur StnrvoKXtjTwp.'

The truth is, of course, the very opposite of this, as is shownby the indicative quaeritis and the imperative of the Syriac,

which are both derived from the ambiguous fyrtire. Therecannot be the slightest doubt of this, seeing that the dis-

covery of Codex Beratinus (<£) has added a second Greekwitness in support of the interpolation. It reads tXa-nwv(cf. minor, c), omits the km before eVe'Xfy; just as m does withet, has aye in place of trvvaye (accede: d, collige), and the com-parative xPW/J-uTepov (utilius) for the positive read by D d.

The word SenrvoxXt'iTuip also occurs in <£.' It is not foundin Bekker's Pollux or in Schmid's Hcsychitts, and the onlyinstance that ancient lexicons are able to cite for its usage is

that of A theiueus, who observes (4. 171 B) that Artemidoruscalls the eXearpos by that name. The note appended in

Hase-Dindorf's Stephanus was not correct at the time of its

publication: Quidam codices Matt. xx. 27, Hesych., Wakef.

Kust. Od., p. 1413, 3; nor the quotation from Ducange: A. in

Lex. MS. Cyriili exp. itrriarup. In the same work Senrvo-KXt)T6piov is cited from Eust, //., 766, 58, and as an explana-

1

I see that Chase, who discusses th,e passage in pp. 9-14 of his Syro-Lalin7«rr, has the same impression :

" the compound Greek word in D, 6 tu^QK \f, T wp,seems intended to represent the Syriac expression ' the lord of the supper.'"

R

258 (JREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [MATT.

tion of lo-Ttaroptov from the Lex. MS. Cyrilli. The word

therefore belongs to the later popular language. The ques-

tion is whether it may not also belong to the vocabulary of

Tatian. Moreover, it reminds us of the equally rare word

KTTjTwp in Acts iv. 34.

On the occurrence of the passage in Tatian, see Zahn,

Forsc/i., i. 85, 179. On the questions connected with its inter-

polation see Chase and p. 216 above.

xxii. 23. We have in this verse an illustration of the difference

caused by the insertion or omission of the article. I f we read ol

Xeyovre? with N c E F G etc., then the words introduce the creed

of the Sadducees (" who say,'' Weizsacker: " members of that

sect who deny the resurrection," Stage) ; if we omit 01 with N*

B D and Syr8ln, we have then what they actually said to Jesus.

But as this would be the only place where Matthew gave an

explanation of this sort regarding Jewish affairs, the article

should be omitted. See note in loco, Expositors Gird- Testa-

ment, and compare the margin of the Revised English Version,

xxiii. 35. N 1 omits vlou (Hapux'ov, which is replaced in the

Gospels of the Hebrews by " filium Joiadae." Zahn (EM.,

ii. 308) refers to the view of Hug, adopted by Eichhorn and

many others, that the author, or redactor, or translator of

Matthew made this Zechariah, who is rightly called the son

of Jehoiada in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the son of Barachiah

in order to identify him with the Zechariah, son of Baruch,

who was murdered by the Zealots (Josephus, Bell., iv. 5. 4).

He points out that this would involve a prediction on the

part of Jesus, and that, moreover, the scene of the murder

is different in the two cases: that the locality in Matt,

points to 2 Chron. xxiv. 21, and that Matthew's mistake

in calling him the son of Barachiah is due to a confusion

with the Zechariah mentioned in Isa. viii. 2, or that in

Zech. i. 1. It should be observed, however, that Lucian

alone calls the murdered person in Chronicles by the name

of Zechariah; the LXX calls him Azariah.

xxv. 41. See on Luke xx. 35.

MATT.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS l'ASSAGES. 259

xxvi. 73. 'O/xotdfa was formerly attested by D alone, but

has now the further support of Syr"". The clause Kai 1? AaAtacrou ofioiafa has crept into a great number of manuscripts,including even A, in Mark xiv. 70. There Tischendorfremarks, " Omnino e Mt. fluxit," in which he is quite right.

But he is wrong when he says " ipsum ofiotdfa glossatoris est."

Because the glossator must then have been earlier than Tatian(Ciasca, p. 87), and the parent of all those manuscripts. Theconverse is the truth—viz., that D alone preserves the originalreading, and that 8q\6v ae iroiei is the voice of the 8top6u)T>k-

xxvii. 9. The name of the prophet, which was omitted in

some manuscripts, according to Augustine, is now omittedonly by a b and the two minuscules 33 and 157. Augustinealso observes that Matthew himself would have noticed hismistake or had his attention called to it by others. On thiscompare my notes on ifiapivare in Acts hi. 14, which I haveexplained by supposing that the author read oma: or omaninstead of DmD3 (Philologica Sacra, p. 40; above, p. 170).Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome evidently still found 'Upeplou inall the manuscripts. 'AaXapiov is supplied only by 22 andEsaiam by 1. See on Matt. xiii. 35, and compare ExpositoryTimes, November 1900, p. 62.

xxvii. 16. Zahn (EM., ii. 294) points out that Origen alsofound Jesus given as the prenomen of Barabbas " in veryancient manuscripts," but that in all probability Tatian didnot have it, seeing that Bar-Bahlul cites it expressly as thereading of the "Distinct" (i.e., not harmonised) Gospel.Jerome says that in the Gospel of the Hebrews he was calledby a name meaning "Alius magistri eorum," so that he musthave been thinking not of Bar-'abbam but of Bar-rabbaw.

xxvii. 49. See above, p. 227, and compare Burkitt, Textsand Studies, v. 5, p. xix.

xxyiii. 18. Compare Dan. vii. i 4b (LXX), Ktl \ ^66„ avr«efoucr.a, and also Dan. vii. 13 ( = Matt. xxvi. 64), vii 14 f

( = Matt.xxviii. 18). See the English Revised Version ivit/imarginal References (Oxford, 1899).

26o GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [MARK.

According to the subscriptions found in various minus-

cules, the Hebrew Matthew was translated into Greek "by

John," or "by James," to which some add "the Brother of

the Lord," or "by Bartholomew, the celebrated Apostle

(iravevcpjuov), but as others say by John the Theologian, ol

Kai aXyOws eipiJKCHTtv." See Teschendorf, and Zahn, Einl., ii. 267.

Mark.

As if to enforce the desire to which I have given expression

above (p. 246), there has come into my hands Blass's Texl-

kritisclie Demerkungen zu Markus. If the statements con-

tained in the introductory remarks are correct, and scarcely

any other view is possible in the circumstances described,

then the textual criticism of the first and second Gospels is a

hopeless matter. " An evangelist or teacher who obtained

possession of the originally anonymous Commentarius could

not feel bound to respect the external form, but considered

himself justified in correcting it if it seemed to him to be

defective, and even felt called to correct or complete its sub-

ject matter." Blass reminds us that we have whole classes ofdocuments, legends of saints e.g., which were treated with the

utmost possible freedom by the copyists, who in fact were in

this case editors and revisers. But he says that no one has

treated Mark quite so drastically as all this. His summingup of the matter is, that the critic can often do no morethan recognise and admit the early multiplicity, and that

in such a case it were best to print the text in parallel

columns. At the same time he is able to distinguish some of

the variants as later falsifications or corruptions. Universally

trustworthy authorities there are none ; here one group is

right, there another, and we no sooner give them credence

than they mislead us with some fresh error.

We are far removed, truly, from the confidence displayed

by Tischendorf in the treatise he published shortly before his

death in 1873 in answer to the question, " Have we the genuine

MARK.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 26l

text of the Evangelical and Apostolical writings ? " All the

more urgently, therefore, do we need fresh studies in textual

criticism, and their appearance in Germany is the more gratify-

ing on that account. The Markus-Studien of Dr. H. P. Chajes

(Berlin, 1899), however, are quite beside the point. Theyare purely imaginary, having neither substance nor method.

i. 1. On the title, see above ; Zahn, Einl., ii. 220 ff., 235 ;

Swete, in loco ; and on this last, S. D. F. Salmond, in the

Critical Review, April 1 899, 206 f. :" We do not see, how-

ever, why Professor Swete should regard the opening verses

as probably not a part of the original work. One might say

the same of the whole paragraph with which the Gospel opens,

or, for that matter, the whole chapter. The documentaryevidence is substantially the same in each case, and the

internal considerations are much too indeterminate." It maybe pointed out, as remotely analogous to this, that before

Matt. i. 18 the margin of harl (Z in W-W) contains a note

in a hand of the ninth or tenth century to the effect, " genea-

logia hucusque: incipit evangelium secundum Matthaeum,"while Y has the words "incipit evangelium secundumMatthaeum " in the text, and eight manuscripts begin verse 18

with capital or red letters. Compare Scrivener, I. c. iii., onthe divisions of the text in B and other manuscripts.

For the way in which the opening sentences are to be con-strued, reference must be made to the commentaries. It maybe said here, however, that parallels may be cited from theNew Testament for each of the three possible constructions.

These are (I) 'ApXh «af)coy .... avrov, eyevero ; (2)

'^PXh • • • • Ka0u>? .... avrov. 'Eyevero ; (3) Apxh ....Ka&of .... auTov, eyevero. For (1) and (2) compareLuke iii. 1 ff., and for (3) 1 Tim. i. i ff. Origen favours thefirst construction (Contra Celsum, ii. 4; vol. i. p. 131). Asregards the text it need only be said that Kat is read before

eye'vero (v. 4) by N 1, and that <Se is found after it, not only

in the Copti«, but also in Syrhler.

i 2. Origen here read eyi and euwpoa-de'v crov (i. 131). But

262 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [MARK.

the former should be omitted with B D etc., and the latter with

all the good authorities. It follows that Matt. xi. 10 is not taken

from Mark i. 2 (Zahn, Einl., ii. 316, 332). One can see how im-

portant the so-called " lower " criticism may be for the " higher."

in; ix. 7. See on " Punctuation " above, p. 52.

i. 29. " B here has e£e\6i>v %\0ev, and D b c e q Pesh. have

substantially the same. This is not an improvement, because

it excludes Peter and Andrew. The reading of Syr""1

is

peculiar, ' and He went out of the synagogue and came into

the house of Simon Cephas (Andrew and James and John

were with him), and the mother-in-law etc."' See Zahn,

Einl., ii. 252, and below on ix. 14.

i. 41. The remarkable " Western reading" opyurOelt is dis-

missed by Swete with a reference to W-H, who call it "a

singular reading, perhaps suggested by v. 43 (ipfSpipn<rdp.€vos),

perhaps derived from an extraneous source." In my Philologica

Sacra, p. 26, I have expressed the opinion that it is impossible

to suppose a copyist altered a-wXayxvicrOeU to opyiaOeit, even

though infipi/jLricranevos does follow two verses further down.1

Either opyrj, opylfaOai has another meaning in Biblical Greek,

which is quite possible, or we have here an instance of a differ-

ence in translation. The confusion of the gutturals, e.g., is very

common. Compare Ps. xii. 6, rve', Gr. V'D< ; Ps. xiv. 6, »ay =

liii. 6, -pn; noe»i in Isa. xxxix. 2 for vdb»i in 2 Kings xx. 13 ;

Ps. xxii. 25, nuy, where Gr. has Se'ijo-ic = nunn ; Ps. xcvii. 1 1,

ini, Gr. mereCKtv = nit ; and especially Mark ix. 19 in

the recently-published Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum of

Lewis-Gibson, where Cod. B has jvmo for njno found in A B.

Compare also "in, Matt. vii. 11 (p. 68), and ~iy (p. 135). Aglance at the Thesaurus Syriacus 3953 shows that Djn is used,

not only for fSpovrav, but also for <rir\ayxvi£«r6ai, o-repyeiv,

and <rufi-iradeiv, while DVinK stands for xaXeTraiveiv, ayavaKTeiv,

and yoyyu'fce. Payne-Smith gives no instance of opyifaQat.

The usual Syriac word for it even in Syr"'" and Syr"leris tn

1 The case is quite different in I Mace. v. 2, where the first hand of N wrote

i,pyUr»n<ra> for {$n\ti<r;jo. Here ipyMr, occurs immediately before it.

MARK.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 263

or nonriK ; both verbs are found together in I Mace. vi. 59 for

the simple mpyhBnvav (nm monriK). It is worth noting that

in Col. iii. 13, opynv is read by F G, where D* has pep.yfnv, and

the other authorities p.on<f»)v.

On the reading in Mark i. 41, see Harris, Fragments etc.

(•895), p. 6. He shows that Ephraem had 6pyur9tlt in his

text alongside of a-irXayxvitrdeK. The Arabic Diatessaron,

in which the pericope does not come till § 22, follows the

usual text, and so, too, does Syr*,n.

ii. 14. Zahn {Einl., ii. 263) holds that " Levi son of Alphaeus"

is the original reading here and not " James," and that it was

taken from Mark into the Gospel of Peter. The reading

" Jacobum " was also taken into the first hand of the Vulgate

manuscript G from D 13, 69, 124, a b c d e fT2

r. In Koetschau's

new edition of Origen, the name is no longer spelt Ac/Sijc

but Aei/i/y (i. 1 13, 19; Cod. P : Aew'c).

iii. 17. Our expositors might tell us where Luther got his

" Bnehargem," which is retained in the German Revised

Version. On Daniel ii. 7 Jerome has " Benereem." I have

looked in vain in Lyra, Pole's Sy?iopsis, Calov, and Wolf.

iii. 31. We have here to choose between (caXovirec (»BCLetc.), (fxovoOvTet (D etc.), and grp-ovtrres (A) : A leaves a space.

I am inclined to think that <pwvovvTe<; is the original reading,

which was improved by the substitution of the more usual

word KaAoiVrec, just as ov <pwvevvroi axovm was altered to

XaXton-oc in the Delphic Oracle in Herodotus i. 47. Com-pare a similar variation in Heb. xi. 13, where the original

reading Kopuo-dpevoi (a* P) was thought to be improved bythe substitution of Xa/3oVrec (nc D E K) or TrpotrSegdnevoi (A).

Here, too, A stands alone. Was it never copied ?

vi. 16. There is a discrepancy in the Eusebian Canons in

this verse which has not been explained. Both Tischendorf

and Wordsworth and White number this verse $. But

according to the table in TiGr., p. 152, W-W, p. 10, pericope

58 belongs to the tenth Canon as being one that is peculiar to

Mark. As a matter of fact it is not so, unless Eusebius meant

aKovaat 6i at the beginning of the verse. It is remarkable

that Eusebius did not make the whole of verses 14-20

one pericope of the second canon, but numbered 14, 15 as

" and 17-20 as *. He must therefore have found some-

2 ' 2

thing peculiar in verse 16 to make it 58.

vi. 20. This passage is very instructive from a textual point

of view. Most authorities read that " Herod had put John

in prison, heard him and did much," or " heard much of what

he did," ai<ov<ras avrov TroXXa (a) eVo/ei. But in place of this

last word x B L and the Bohairic version alone read ijirnpu,

" was much perplexed when he heard him." The great

majority of expositors decide at once in favour of the latter

reading, setting aside eiroltt as the scriptio proclivior. But in

that case should it not have been tjiropdTO ? In classical Greek

it should undoubtedly, but in Biblical Greek we find tjiropei in

Wisd. xi. 5, 17, for example, and what is specially worth

noting, Sitjiropei in the parallel passage Luke ix. 7, for which

D, it is true, has ijiropefro. The passage may therefore be

taken as showing that the correct reading has been preserved

in a very few witnesses. Strict logic, moreover, would lead

us to infer that not one of our 1300 manuscripts is derived

from any one of these three, but that x B L continued childless.

Is that likely ? Field, it may be added, decides in favour of

eiro/ei (Otium Norvicense ; see Expository Times, August 1899,

p. 483), and so, too, does Burkitt ( Texts and Studies, v. 5,

p. xix). In Philo, i. 264, line 8 (ed. Cohn), the manuscripts

vary between fieTcwpowoXeiv, —wopetv, —iroieiv, and —Xoyeiv.

vii. 33. Codex W, published by Harris in facsimile (1896),

here exhibits a very peculiar reading which Harnack ( ThLz.,

1891, p. 356) thinks has affinity with Tatian. It reads : eirrvaev

fit tovs SaKTvXovt avTov Kai efiaXev eiy to &ra rov Ktixfiou Kai

rj\jsaTO Trji yXwcro-w tov /moyiXaXov. This gives us quite

another view of the occurrence than most of the authorities

do. It seems much more natural certainly to moisten the

MARK.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 265

fingers before putting them in the ears than before touching

the tongue. It reads somewhat similarly in Syr,ln, which says

that " he put his fingers and spat in his ears, and touched his

tongue." 1 This manuscript exhibits other noteworthy read-

ings, which will be found most conveniently in Swete.

ix. 14. The singular, eXOmv elSev, has the support of D,

while Syr"'" takes the side of the plural, iXOovres .... etSov.

Zahn decides for the latter. He explains the plural by saying

that the original narrator was evidently one of the three dis-

ciples who were with Jesus on the Mount, in all probability

Peter, as tradition has it. Peter, of course, in telling the story,

used the first person and the plural number, "When we came

down from the mountain we saw, etc." Mark, reporting the

words of Peter, turned the first person into the third, retaining

the plural number. Zahn explains in the same way the some-

what peculiar expressions in Mark i. 29. Here Peter said,

" we {i.e. Jesus, Andrew, and himself) came into our house

with James and John." In reporting Peter's words Markparaphrases " we " and " our," and says, " they came into the

house of Simon and Andrew with James and John." See

Zahn, Einl., ii. 245 f.

x. 30. Neither Tischendorf nor Swete observes that in

addition to the readings <Wy/xti>e and Siwytnou the singular

Stwynov is exhibited by D. Has the mysterious reading «'$

ttov in Clem. Alex. (Qitis Dives) anything to do with this?

It is worth remarking that the Vienna Arabic manuscript

(Lagarde: Storr) has a note after "post persecutionem " to

the effect that this is the " Roman " reading.

xiv. 51. Kai veae/o-fcoy tij, sBCL; veuvl(TKos Si t<9, D ; k<u

tit tic itcWaxof, A E etc. This last is rejected by Zahn onthe ground that the text has evidently been accommodatedto verse 47, under the false impression that another of the

disciples is referred to. It is adopted, however, by Tischen-

dorf8, and supported by Brandt, Die Evangelische Geschickte

etc., Leipzig, 1893, p. 23 ff.

1 So given in Merx's edition, Imt not in Lewis.— Tr.

xiv. 65. k'XaBov, sAB and most authorities : eXd/xBavov,

DG, 1,13, 69, 2>"\ al10

: eBaXXov, H. . . . : eBaXov, EMU etc.

The simplest explanation of this variety of readings is that

eXdnftavov was first, and that it was changed into the more

common aorist ZXaBov, which then became eBaXov or eBaXXov-

The converse is not so likely, viz. that efiaXXov or eBaXov

became first eXaBov and then eXd/xBavov, or that eXaBov gave

rise directly both to iXd/xBavov and eBaXov or eBaXXov.

On these and also on internal grounds the reading of D G is

to be preferred :" they began to spit upon him, and con-

tinued to buffet him."

xv. 28. Syr51" is now to be added to the authorities that

omit the interpolation. On the interesting names, Zoatham

and Chammatha, Dysmas and Gestas, Titus and Dumachus

(i.e. Qeofxd\os), see Berger in the notice of Wordsworth, and

White's Epilogits mentioned above, and also J. R. Harris in

the Expositor, March 1900, p. 162 ff., April, p. 304.

xv. 34. It is extraordinary that no reference is made in

Swete's edition to the very singular reading ofCodex D, wvlSitras

instead of eyicaTtXnre?. In addition to the testimony of the

Old Latin manuscripts c (exprobrasti me), i(me in opprobrium

dedisti), k* (maledixisti : see Burkitt in the Journal oj Theo-

logical Studies, i. p. 278), this reading is attested in Greek by

Macarius Magnes. No explanation of it has yet been given

that is in all respects satisfactory. See Expository Times,

August 1898, and February, March, and April 1900.

xvi. 9-20. The English Revisers had not the courage to

omit the conclusion. They print it quite like the rest of the

text, only they separate it from the foregoing by a somewhat

wider space than usual, and give a note in the margin to the

following effect— viz. " The two oldest Greek manuscripts

and some other authorities omit from verse 9 to the end.

Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.'1

The German Revised Version has no remark to offer, which is

easily accounted for on the principles on which that version is

made. The most careful discussion of the passage is now that

LUKE.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 267

of Svvete, pp. xcvi-cv. See also Zahn, Einl., ii. 227-235, 237,

240, and compare the Appendix in Chase's Old Syriac Ele-

ment, pp. 150-157, "Note on Mark xvi. 9-20," and Arthur

Wright, The Gospel according to St. Luke, p. xv.

The subscription of several minuscules bears that Mark's

Gospel was written at Rome ten years after the Ascension,

and delivered to the brethren there by Peter, the irpwroKopv

<j>alo<; of the Apostles. Others give Egypt as the place of

origin. It is of more importance to observe that A 20, 262,

300 contain the note: avreBXijOtj op-o'iu)? e/c tw tcnrovSao-ftevwv.

This refers to the subscription to Matthew found in these

manuscripts : eypd<pi /ca< avreBXtfOr) « tO>v ev Iepoo~oXvfiois

iraXatwv dvTiypd<pwv tS>v ev tu> dyiw opei airoKetfievwv. A similar

subscription occurs in 2"*, a minuscule of considerable import-

ance for Mark (473 in Scrivener ; see above, p. 151, n.).

Luke.

Apart altogether from the question how the numerous and

decided peculiarities of Codex D are to be explained, we find a

great many problems connected with the text of Luke's Gospel.

On the supposed title 9ee Zahn, Einl., ii. 383.

i 26. In place of the definite indication of time, Blass

follows certain Latin authorities, especially the Latin Irenaeus,

in giving : in ipso (or, eodem) autem tempore, ev avrw Se raKaipw. Zahn points out (Einl., ii. 354) that this is the cus-

tomary formula for the beginning of a pericope in the Lec-

tionaries, and that while no doubt in the later Greek system

the pericope of the Annunciation began with verse 24, 26 is

the more appropriate beginning. He adds that in any case

the origin of this formula is evident, and that Cod. D, which

here parts company with the Latin witnesses, gives other

indications besides this of the influence of a pericope-system.

See the Introduction to Scrivener's edition of the Codex, p. Ii.

i. 46. On the reading Elisabeth, see above, p. 238.

i 63. The B text inserted the words eXvQ-q»J yXaura-a

268 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [LUKE.

ain-ov before teal iOavfiaarav iraVrtf, by way of explaining theastonishment of the people. Zahn thinks this an absurdmisplacement, seeing that the mention of Zechariah's speakingdoes not come till the following verse, and the people couldnot know that his tongue was loosed till they heard himspeak. Syrsl" accordingly corrects this by putting the men-tion of the astonishment after that of the speaking, in whichit is followed by Blass.

ii. 4- 5- In the /3 text Blass adopts the reading clvtoIs, andtransposes the clause Sia to thai wVouy e£ oIkov tat irarpmAaveiS to the end of verse 5. This arrangement is alsoexhibited by D. Syr"" reads " both." One Old Latin manu-script has essent, but as it exhibits the clause in the usualplace, Zahn thinks that essent is manifestly a clerical error foresset. The Syriac, he points out, is derived from TatianSee Eini., ii. 355; Forsch., i. 118; GK., ii. 561 ; Vetter, Derdritte Korintherbrief (1 8.94), 25.

ii. 7- One Latin manuscript (e) has obvolverunt and colloc-averunt, which may be compared with essent in verse 4.Zahn thinks that the plural here is due to the reflection thatthe mother does not usually herself attend to a new-borninfant.

ii. 14. How does the Christmas song of the angels runexactly ? Is it £V wOp^ots eCSccla,, or iv av6. eO<Wa ? Thequestion belongs more to exegesis than textual criticism.The whole matter turns upon a single letter, but it dividesWestern Christendom in two parts. The Latin Church readsit as in hominibus bonae voluntatis, " among men of goodwill,"or, as modern critics understand it, "among men of God'sgood pleasure.'* The second reading makes it "goodwill tomen." Which should it be ? The former reading, the geni-tive, is supported by «• A B* D, the Latin, and the Gothic,whereas nearly all the other witnesses, including the Bohairic'the three Syriac, and A itself in the Hymns at the end of theOld Testament Psalter, have the nominative. One thingseems to me decisive in favour of the nominative. Scarcely


any part of the New Testament is so steeped in the Hebrewspirit as the first two chapters of Luke's Gospel. As Field

points out in the third part of his Otium Norvicense, the

Greek avOpwiroi corresponds to the Hebrew expression " sonof Adam," which cannot take another genitive after it

—"sonsof Adam of goodwill." On the other hand, the word goodwillin Hebrew is always followed by the preposition correspond-ing to the Greek eV. So that, till we have further testimony,I would retain the nominative and the tripartite division,

notwithstanding the authority of Tischendorf, Westcott andHort, Weizsacker, Stage, and Blass, who, by the way,mentions no variants in the /8 text.

ii. 40. D here reads iv aurw in place of eir' avro. Thedifference is slight, but not unimportant from a theologicalpoint of view. It is not accidental, as is shown by thecorresponding change of eV into eSy in ch. iii. 22.

iii. 22. Zahn regards this as one of the passages wherein Dand its associates have preserved the original reading. Theyexhibit here eyw crrifitpov yeyevvriKa <re in place of eV <ro\

evSoKvtra. He says, moreover, that "those who hold theformer as original need not lament its disappearance fromtradition subsequent to the year 300" (Einl., ii. 240, 356).See Burkitt in Barnard's Biblical Text of Clement, pp.xiii. 38.

iii. 23 ff. May not the peculiar form of the genealogy in Dbe explaimed by the Diatessaron, which originally had nogenealogy ? The index of the Latin edition shows that therewas none originally, but we find in the text one compiledfrom Matt. i. 1-16, Luke iii. 34-37, Matt. i. 17. The first-

known manuscript of the Arabic Diatessaron had Matt. i. 1-17in § 2, and Luke iii. 24-38 in § 9. The better manuscript,discovered later, has no genealogy in the text, but it containsone compiled from Matt, and Luke, inserted between theclose of the work and the subscription by way of appendixSee Zahn, GK., ii. 539 ; J. R Hill, Earliest Life of Christetc., p. 3 f.

iii. 27. The correct explanation of 'Pij<ra is that given byPlummer in his Commentary on Luke, and quoted by Baconin Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, ii. 140. " Rhesa, whoappears in Luke, but neither in Matt, nor in 1 Chron., is

probably not a name at all, but a title which some Jewishcopyist mistook for a name. Zerubbabel Rhesa or Zerubbabelthe Prince (K^tO) has been made into 'Zerubbabel (begat)

Rhesa.' " The interpretation of Rhesa as " prince "is, how-

ever, not new. See Pole's Synopsis: it was not safe to use

the proper name Zerubbabel in Babylon, seeing that it meant" ventilatio Babelis," and the name Sheshbazzar was therefore

substituted for it Sic filii eius Meshullam et Hanania, quiavix ibi tuto aut proprie dici potuerunt Abiud, i.e. patris meiest gloria, et Rhesa princeps (Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae).

Reuchlin (Rudimenta, p. 18) gives the explanation WfQ (sic)

qui cognominatur Mesollam. This interpretation, however,lends no real support to Sellin's theory.

iv. 34. The exclamation ea, which Zahn (GK., i. 682) says is

unknown in the New Testament, is omitted by D, eleven OldLatin manuscripts, and also by Marcion. It is supported bya considerable number of witnesses in Mark i. 24. Accordingto Zahn, these witnesses took it from Luke, but of this I amby no means certain. Syr"ln omits it in both places. InLuke it is also omitted by four manuscripts of the Vulgatementioned by Wordsworth and White.

iv. 34 Marcion invariably omits Nafapijce. There is, how-ever, no other authority for its omission. See Zahn, GK, i.

685 ; ii. 456.

iv. 44. lovSalas is the better attested reading, and onaccount of the improbability of its being invented, should beregarded as the original. See Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 373.

v. 5- 'Emo-rcn-a in the New Testament is peculiar to Luke.In place of it D has SiSda-KoXe here, and xupie in viii. 24. It

retains iinaTaTa, however, in viii. 45, ix. 33, ix. 49, andxvii. 13.

v. 14. The long interpolation at the end of the verse found


1

in D d is derived from Mark i. 45 and ii. I, though there are

slight differences. It is introduced here for harmonistic

reasons. Was it taken from Tatian ?

v. 27. After the name of Levi, D inserts tov rod 'k\<f>alov,

which, according to Zahn, is not original. See Einl., ii. 263.

v. 39. Marcion agrees with D in the omission of this verse.

Syr*1" and Syr" are, unfortunately, both defective here. To

the authorities for its omission should be added r, which

Weiss does not mention. On the reasons for the omission

of the verse, see Zahn, GK., i. 681.

vi. 5. Zahn is of opinion that the narrative of the man

working on the Sabbath is taken from the same source as

Mark xvi. 9 ff., and the pericope adulterae.john vii. 53-viii. 11

—viz. from Papias, and that it may be historically true. See

his Einleitung, ii. 355. Westcott and Hort insert it among

their "Noteworthy Rejected Readings," and Resch puts it

among the " Logia Jesu." The Sinai-Syriac is defective here.

For a long time it was thought that D and Stephen's /3 were

different manuscripts, and they are here cited by Mill as " duo

codices vetustissimi." This was shown to be a mistake by

Bengel. Grotius also speaks of "nonnulli codices," and,

according to Mill, thought the words were " adjecta ab aliquo

Marcionita." The narrative seems to have remained quite

unknown during the thousand years that elapsed between its

relation by D and its publication by Stephen in 1550.

According to Scrivener's edition of Codex Bezae, p. 435,

none of the ten or twelve later hands that worked upon the

manuscript down to the twelfth century and even later,

seem to have touched the page on which this narrative

stands (205^). It would seem, therefore, that no copy was

ever made of this manuscript either. How much would have

been lost had it also disappeared entirely ?

vi. 10. Whether u>s icdl ij aXXij is genuine or not is of no

material consequence so far as the exposition of the passage

is concerned, but it is important in connection with the ques-

tion of the relationship of Luke to the other Synoptics. The

words are wanting in Mark iii. 5, but occur in Matt. xii. 13.

See Zahn, Einl., ii. 420.

vi. 31. Zahn is not sure if Marcion's text contained the

Golden Rule in this passage in the negative form. GK., I

680 ; ii. 462.

• vii. 27. Zahn thinks that enirpocrdev trov should perhaps be

omitted here {Einl., ii. 316).

viii. 43. The words larpoh irpotravaKiivatra o\ov tov filov are

omitted in B D. Zahn holds it to be an " unworthy insinua-

tion " to suppose that Luke, being himself a physician, toned

down the expressions used by Mark as reflecting on the credit

of his profession. The words are more likely to be a gloss

from Mark. See Einleitung, ii. 437.

ix. 1. This verse is written three times over in codex H.

This cannot be a mistake. It might have been written twice

by inadvertence, but not three times. The reason lies in the

fact related—viz., the conferring of the power over evil spirits,

ix. 16. The reading ev\6y>i<rev eir' avrout crept into the

Vulgate manuscript called G by Wordsworth and White from

the Old Latin. It is now attested also by Syr'ln. See Lewis,

Some Pages, in loco. Zahn thinks it is deserving of special

attention {GK., i. 682). In this he is quite right.

ix. 18. Marcion here had tov vIovtov avQpiinrov. See Zahn,

GK., i. 686.

ix. 52-56. " It is impossible to suppose that the shorter

form of the text is the original, and the longer due to a later

interpolation, as this would imply what is incredible—viz., that

one of Marcion's most antinomian readings found its way into

a large number of Catholic manuscripts (D, the Peshitto,

Harklean Syriac, most Latin witnesses, Chrysostom, etc.).

The only probable explanation is that the Catholic writers

objected to 54^ and 55^ on account of the use made of them

by the Marcionites, and the apparently Marcionitic character

of their contents. They were particularly offensive when

taken together. Accordingly, some manuscripts like e and

Syrcu omitted only 54*, others, like A C, only 55*, while


others again, like B L Syr*ln, boldly omitted both The

words were written by Luke and not invented by Marcion."

Zahn, GK., i. 681, ii. 468; Einl., ii. 357.

x. I. Instead of 70, B D, Tatian, the Syriac, and the Latin

give 72. According to Zahn, the number has nothing to dowith the Jewish enumeration of 70 Gentile nations, languages,

or angels, nor the 70 members of the Sanhedrim, the 70translators of the Old Testament, or with any other number70. These 70 were not sent to the Gentiles, and Luke gives

no hint of the allegorical significance of their number. Anysuch allegorizing was foreign both to himself and Theophilus,

neither of whom was a Jew. See Einl., ii. 392.

xi. 2. On fiaTroXoytw wt ot \onrol in D, see my Philologica

Sacra, pp. 27-36.

xi. 3. There is a certain amount of probability in Zahn'sview that Marcion was led to insert aov after apros eiriovcrtot

by thinking of John vi. 33 f, a passage which suggested itself

to Origen also in this connection. See Zahn (GK., i. 677, ii.

471), who thinks it probable that Marcion interpreted thewords in a spiritual sense ( = supersubstantialis\

xi. 53. The text of D here displays several marked varia-

tions, which, however, do not affect the sense of the passage.

Zahn sees in them the arbitrary alterations of a later time

;

but Weiss thinks that in some particulars they may preservethe original.

xii. 1. Marcion, seemingly, and Jerome omit irpSrrov, whichis attested by most of the Old Latin witnesses, with the

,> exception of b. See Zahn, GK, i. 692, ii. 474.xii. 14. The words >j nepicrrhv were omitted by Marcion

(Zahn, GK., i. 682). They are also wanting in the Sinai-Syriac (see Lewis, Some Pages).

xii. 38. The mention of the evirepivh <j>v\aK>) by Marcionand other authorities is due, according to Zahn (GK, ii. 683 ;

Einl, ii. 356), to the " magisterial consideration " that anorderly householder would not come home from the festivities

after midnight or in the early hours of the morning, but at theS

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [LUKE.274

latest in the first watch of the night, which was still called

the evening. The reading is also found in Irenes, but not

in the Sinai-Syriac., . , r

xii. 5 i. /3«Ae,V OW is found here in Syr- in place of

Trowai (De Syr"), mittere (b 1), JoSwu (usual text). 1 his

is interesting in view of Marcion. See Zahn, GK, 1.604, u. 47°-

Tertullian seems to have been mistaken in th.nking that

uaxcuaav was read in place of S^ep^ in this connection

fmachaeram quidem scriptum est Sed Marcion emendat,

quasi non et separatio opus sit machaerae).

xiii. 8. See above, p. 193 ff. Chase cites this passage as an

indication of the laxity of transcription of which D was guilty

in introducing what appears to be a common agricultural

phrase. In Columella (De Re Rustica, xi. 3) we find con-

fecta bruma stercoratam terram inditam coph.nis obserat.

Chase also cites from the manuscript notes of Hort the refer-

ence to Plutarch, Vita Pompeii, 48, avrod Si r.y KOirptm koQivov

Kara «#aX* to5 BtfXou Kare^Sare. Better than any words

of mine are those of Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 346:-No one with

any perception of the difference between naive originality and

a regularity due to liturgical, dogmatic, and stylistic con-

siderations can fail to assent to the following propositions-

viz (1) as regards contents and form of expression B (t.e. the

text of D and its associates) has preserved much original

matter, which from the very first was peculiarly liable to

alteration, and which was set aside by the learned revisers

from the end of the third century onwards (Lucian, Hesychius,

Pamphilus), etc.,

xvi 12 While the common text with Syr" 1" reads u^repov,

for which B L have jp&npo*, Marcion alone supports 157

e i 1 in reading e>oV. How is this to be explained? Com-

pare above, p. 21 1, and Zahn, GK, i. 682.

xvi 19 Zahn denominates the introductory words found

in D, rfw S'e «a! fripa* irapajSoA*. " a liturgical gloss at the

beginning of a pericope." Blass, too, omits them from the

text.


xvi. 22, 23. n* most Old Latin witnesses, and the Vulgateomit Kal at the beginning of verse 23, and read erd<j»i ev tu>

qSfl. This conjunction of the words is attested by Tatianand Marcion. The Sinai-Syriac presupposes the form " wasburied. And being in Hades he lifted up his eyes." Atten-tion may be drawn to the detailed notice of the different

readings by Wordsworth and White. They say : Asyndetonin Johanne tolerabile, in Luca vix ferendum videtur. . . . Vixdubium est quin Lucas ipse scripserit Kat erd<f>i)- Kcu ev twq.8fl,

sed Kal secundum in antiquissimis codicibus ut nunc in

N* casu omissum, ex conjectura tribus modis restitutumvidetur, sc. koi ev t£ <f8a, et eV Si rw aSp et eV ™ SSa k<u ;

quae lectiones omnes in codicibus Latinis referuntur, et ter-

tiam ab Hieronymo ex traditione codicum suorum servatammagis quam ex ratione praelatam credimus. See Zahn, GK,i. 682, ii. 480.

xvii. 1 1. " In all likelihood ixecrov, without the preposition,as given by D, is the original form. This was variouslyreplaced by waftecrov (Ferrar Group), which is not amiss, bySia fierov (A X, etc), which is not so good, and by Sia ne<rov(n B L), which is very bad." Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 391.Compare, also (for peaov), Jiilicher, Gleichnisreden Jesu, ii. 516.

xvii. 21. Marcion inserts ISov before «€«", which Zahn holdsto be original. Syr"" reads "here it is, or there it is," andtherefore apparently omits the first ISov as well. See Lewis,Some Pages. Wordsworth and White omit TischendorfsgL

* from the authorities given by him in support of theomission of the second ecce.

xviiL 20. On the alterations made on the text here by thefollowers of Marcion, see Zahn, GK, i. 616, ii. 484.

xviii. 25. The evidence in support of the readings Tpfoarosand e\oVw is very strong (N B D L). The choice of theterms Tp^a for Tpvwma or rpvpaXui, and /3e\oVij for fiatf,betrays the language of the physician. See The Exposito/sGreek Testament, Acts of the Apostles, Introduction, pp. 9-1 1

;

Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 427 f., 435 f.

xx. 35. With reference to this verse, Tertullian makes the

following charge against the Marcionites : Nacti enim scripturae

textum ita in legendo decurrerunt :" quos autem dignatus est

deus illius aevi "; " ilHus aevi " " deo " adjungunt cum sic

legi oporteat," quos autem dignatus est," ut facta hie distinctione

post " deum " ad sequentia pertineat " illius aevi," etc. Zahn

insists, as against Ritschl, Hilgenfeld, and Volkmar, that this

requires not only the insertion of viro rod Qeov after kot-

a£twdevres, but also the active voice instead of the passive, as

though the Marcionites had read oi)s 6e KaTi/fiWei- o 0eoj tow

amvos nelvov, TvXe?x «« tJjj arairrdirca*. A similar change of

construction occurs in Matt. xxv. 41, where it is quite certain

that to hrowavnevov is a correction of the stronger expression

o nrolnaaev 6 xar.fp fiov, found in D, I, 22, ten Old Latin manu-

scripts, and the earliest Fathers.

xxi. 30. The insertion of toc Kapirbv avruv may be but a

trifling addition, intended to facilitate the sense (Zahn, GK.,

i. 682), at the same time it is an interesting question how it

comes to be in D, 157, 572 (see above, p. 211). Wordsworth

and White say that D here is '• ex Latinis forsan correctus."

Syr,ln agrees with Syrca in inserting the words.

xxii. 16. For irXtipuidjj D reads kchvov /3/oo>0/}.. On this see

my Philologica Sacra, p. 38, where it is suggested that these

two readings are due to the confusion of rfa and ^>3«. This

occurs several times in the Old Testament—^. 2 Chron.

xxx. 22, where tatn is represented in the LXX by awere-

\taav. But even apart from the question of a Hebrew foun-

dation for the variant, I am inclined to regard koivov (ipwdij

as the original, and irXtipwdfi as the correction.

xxii. 16-21. The narrative of the Last Supper is extant in

three forms. There is (1) the common text, (2) that exhibited

by the two most important of the Old Latin witnesses (b, e), in

which verse 16 is followed by 19a, after which come 17, 18, 21,

so that 196 and 20 are wanting altogether. The text of

Syr"ln and Syr°u resembles this. There is further (3) the form

exhibited by D and four Old Latins, which has the same order


as (1), but omits verses 19b, 20. Zahn decides in favour of (2).

See his Einleitung, ii. 357 ff. It is to be observed that the

last discovered Syriac omits the nominatival clause to virlp

ifiwv eKxvvvofievov after tQ> aifxarl fiov, which is the only memberthat seems to be derived, not from 1 Cor. xi. 24 f, but from

Matthew and Mark, and that does not agree in construction

with the rest. This confirms the supposition that these twoverses are not part of the original text See Westcott andHort, Notes on Select Readings, p. 63 f. ; Plummer, Commentaryon St. Luke in the International Series (T. & T. Clark). Com-pare also the article by the latter in Hastings' Dictionary oftheBible (Lord's Supper).

xxii. 36. On apa.ru> Basil the Great (d. 379) remarks:aparw tjroi apet' ovra> yap xal ra iroXXa twv avriypaipwe\u . . . . iuy firi eTvai irpoarayfia dXXd irpo<f»rrelav irpo-

Xryoiroj rod Kvplov. At present D is quite alone in exhibit-

ing the reading apei, which is worth noting in view of rairoWa above.

xxii. 43, 44. These verses, with their mention of the BloodySweat and the Strengthening Angel, are omitted in A B RT,one Old Latin (f), the Bohairic, Sahidic, and Armenianversions, and the Sinai-Syriac. On the other hand, they areread by the Curetonian Syriac and the Peshitto, by the first

and third hands of tt (the second hand enclosed them in

brackets and cancelled them by means of dots), by D, as alsoby most of the Old Latin witnesses and the Vulgate. In theGreek Lectionaries they are omitted at the place where onewould naturally expect them, but are found in the text ofMatthew xxvi., together with portions of John xiii., in theLiturgy for Holy Thursday. This explains their insertionafter Matt. xxvi. 39 in the Ferrar Group, at least in 13, 69,124. The first of these, moreover, repeats the first two wordsof verse 43 (£$$>} St) in Luke, but no more. The necessaryinference is that these verses are no part of the original textof Luke. They go back, however, to a time when extra-canonical traditions from the Life and Passion of Jesus were

in circulation either orally or in writing. Zahn holds that Dhere has preserved what Luke wrote.

xxiii. 2. Zahn (GK., i. 668) expressly points out that Mar-

cion did not invent the additional words Kat KaraXvovra rov

vonov Ka\ Toiis TT/oo^i/Tay, but found them in his exemplar.

They occur in eight Old Latin and at least five Vulgate

manuscripts, among which are four of the early codices

collated by Wordsworth and White. One of them omits et

proplietas, while some others have nostrum after legem. Weiss

takes no notice of this addition, nor of the further addition in

verse 5 of the words aifocnpe<t>ovTa to? ywaticas Kai ra tckvo,

supported by at least two Old Latin manuscripts, both of

which add non enim baptizantur sicut et nos, while one of themexhibits the still further extension nee se mundant. If the

addition were really made by Marcion, it would be all the

more deserving of attention. The omission of the additional

words in verse 2 is conceivably due to homoioteleuton, the eye

of the scribe passing from KaraXvovra to KwXvovra. In the

case of verse 5, the mention of the women and children is quite

consistent with what is said elsewhere in the narrative of the

Passion, but the reference to baptism and purification is not

so clear. Codex c has the singular baptizatur, but this is

merely a clerical error.

xxiii. 34. The case of the First Word from the Cross is

remarkable. This verse, containing the words, " Father, for-

give them, for they know not what they do," is bracketed in Kby an early corrector, and then restored ; it is omitted by Bwithout being replaced ; it is inserted in D by a hand not

earlier than the ninth century, and omitted by two Old Latin

manuscripts, by two Bohairic codices, by the Sahidic version,

and by the newly-discovered Sinai-Syriac. Is it possible to

suppose that a Christian would have cancelled these words in aBible manuscript like a, unless he had valid reasons for doingso in the tradition of the Gospel text ? Zahn thinks they wereomitted from D by mistake. On the Order of the Seven Wordssee my note in the Expository Times for June 1900, p. 423 f.


xxiii. 38. The notice of the three languages in which the

Inscription on the Cross was written is taken from fhe text of

John, and is read by all the Latin authorities with the single

exception of codex Vercellensis (a). Syr5'" is now to be added

to the witnesses supporting the omission of the clause. Its

use of the word Kpua reveals the ultimate affinity of this

version with the Curetonian Syriac. The interpolation, as

Zahn rightly asserts (GK., i. 675), points to the estimation in

which John's Gospel was held at an early date. Its insertion

in Luke is undoubtedly erroneous.

xxiii. 43. The insertion of rm eirnrXfaaovTi in D, as well as

the other variants found in this manuscript, viz. eXfwri?, which

is also read by D in Luke xxi. 7, and ddpaet, which is inserted

by others in Luke viii. 48, is attributed by Zahn (Einleitung,

ii. 356) to some preacher who sought in this way to contrast

the penitent thief with his comrade. With the substantival

expression eXewny, compare StnrvoicXijTtap exhibited by D in

Matt. xx. 28. On the somewhat rare verb eiwrXqo-a-eiv, com-pare the new edition of Origen, i. 5, 8 ; also Clement Alex,

(ed. Dindorf), i. 186, 188.

xxiii. 53. After Ktlfievon U, with a few minuscules, reads

Kai wpo(T€Kv\t(Ttv \180v p.eyav eirt Tqv Ovpav tow fivqfielov,

while three Vulgate manuscripts have a similar addition et

inposito eo inposuit monumento lapidem magnum. On the

other hand D, with its Latin, reads Kat (JeVroy (leg. reOevrot)

avrov eirtOijKev tb fiv>]fji€i \160v ov f/toyis ukocti e/a'A ioc Thesame thing is found in the Old Latin manuscript c, et cunt

positus esset in monumento, posuerunt lapidem quern vix viginti

volvebant. The Sahidic and T 1 exhibit a similar expansion

of the text. In this addition, which Scrivener thought was" conceived somewhat in the Homeric spirit," Harris detects

a Latin hexameter which the scribe of Codex Bezae " de-

liberately incorporated into his text and then turned into

Greek." See his Study of Codex Bezae in Texts and Studies,

ii. 1, 47-52. Chase, on the other hand, adduces Josephus,

Bell. Jud., v\. 5, 3 (Syro- Latin Text, p. 62 ff.). Compare myPhilologica Sacra, pp. 39, 58.

28o GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [LUKE.

xxiv. 6. The reading Scru (D, c, Marcion, etc.) in place of

w? is now attested also by the Sinai-Syriac.

xxiv. 32. In place of Kwo/xivi) (a text) and KCKaXvunevi) (D),

Blass inserts ftefiapnfiei") in the text on the authority of the

old Syriac versions, the Armenian, and the Sahidic. But in the

Syriac this last reading is due to a transcriptional error of -vp»

for -vp< (see Mass himself, p. 120, and compare tKe variants

-ipio and ipio in Rahmani's Testamcntum D. N. Jesu Christi,

p. 112,6); and as the Armenian is derived from the Syriac,

the only question becomes whether the Sahidic reading is due

to the same error. KeKaXv/m/ntvn in D, which has hitherto

baffled explanation, is shown to be a purely clerical error by

comparison with Heb. xii. 18, where also KtKuvfitvb) becomes

K£KLikv/jinevy in the Greek of D and in Pseudo-Athan. 57.

xxiv. 34. V< >r XeyoiTdf D reads Xe'yoire?, which is simply a

clerical error arising easily from the influence of the Latin,

which would be the same in either case. For the conclusions

drawn from this reading by Resell, see his Aussercanonische

Para/lettcxtf, hi. 779 f. Other examples of the same mistake

(

—

ef for — ,<?) occur in Matt. xxii. 16; Acts vi. II, xvi. 35;

Rom. vi. 13. It is interesting to observe that Origen had

^//uwi'o? Ktu KAeoVa (i. 1 84, ed. Koetschau).

xxiv. 37. Zahn (GK., i. 681) rejects the supposition that

the reading rpuiTtta-fxu for irvev/xa was coined by Marcion and

taken from a Marcionite Bible into D. That he is right

in doing so appears from Chase, who shows that <j>uvriurfia

here is the same as Sdi/iouov acrwtxuTov in Ignatius (AdSniyrnaeos, hi. 2). See my Pliilologica Sacra, p. 25. The

Semitic equivalent of (/ximroyxu as well as of Saifiovtov is

isc;.', tost;;, 1 which is used in both the earlier Syriac versions,

1 See also von Dubscluitz, Das A'ery^uia Petri, p. 82, where lie cites the

passage of Origen relating to the Doitrina Petri, which is also quoted by Tischen-

(iorf on Luke xxiv. 39, and insists rightly that in the LXX Saiftiyiov is never

employed to represent nn. Conybeare's articles on "The Demonology of the NewTestament" in the Jewish Quarterly Review (1896) I have unfortunately been

unable to consult. Joh. Weiss never mentions tpavTaopa in his article on Damonen

mid Dtniionisehe in the I'KE :i

,iv.

JOHN.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 28l

the Curetonian and the Lewis, to represent r/>an-a<r/za in Matt,

xiv. 26 and Mark vi. 49. I find that NINC is used for irveu/ia

in the translation of Eusebius (Eccles. Hist., v. 16, ed. Wright-

Maclean, p. 289).

xxiv. 39. All the authorities agree in saying that Marcion

omitted the words ifri]\ai<TaTe fie ku\ "Se-re, while Tertullian

and Epiphanius state that he also omitted crd/o/caj k<u. See

Zahn, GK., ii. 495, who adds that " the longer clause

—

i.e.

^rtiXatju'ia-aTi /ue /cai "Sere—is also omitted by D, it (with the

exception of Colbertinus), vg, but not Syrcu, as Tischendorf

wrongly states." This however is a misapprehension. Theom in Tischendorf refers only to fxe after yfriiXa^i'ia-are. This

is omitted by Syrcu as well as by D and also by Syr"ln. It

would be more exact to say, however, that the xai before

IStre is also omitted by Syrcu. Moreover, Syr" 1" agrees with

Syrc " in reading on ey<« eifit avros after "Sere.

The subscription of certain minuscules states that Luke's

Gospel was written fifteen years after the Ascension. Somesay eiV 'AXegavSpelav t>]v fxeyftXriv, others iv 'Pitf/ii;, while one

says very strangely, er tj) 'Attik/J.tiJc BoKOTa/a?, " for Theo-

philus, who became bishop after divine baptism." A, 262, 300

also contain here the notice of careful collation. The chapter

enumeration in these manuscripts is not the same, being 342,

349, and 345 respectively.

John.

In this Gospel the attention of textual critics was long

confined to the passage vii. 53-viii. 11. They failed to

observe that in other places there are clauses and whole verses

whose omission or interpolation has to be investigated in con-

nection with vii. 53 (T., as, for example, iv. 9, v. 3, 4, and that

interesting questions of textual criticism are raised in other

parts of the book as well.

Chapter xxi., which the last two verses of the preceding

chapter clearly show to be an Appendix, is equally well

282 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [JOHN.

attested by all the authorities, while the omission of xx. 31

by the first hand of G is just one of those unaccountable

phenomena which make their appearance so frequently in the

domain of textual criticism. The same thing is probably to

be said of the omission in s of the last verse of chapter xxi.

Tischendorf was of opinion that this last verse in », together

with the concluding ornament and subscription, was not by

the same hand (A) as had written the Gospel of John, but by

another (D) who had acted as corrector, and had written part

of the Apocrypha and six leaves of the New Testament.

Tregelles, on the other hand, who examined the passage in

Tischendorf's presence, thought the difference was due simply

to the scribe having taken a fresh dip of the ink : that at all

events the scribe who wrote the Gospel (A) did not intend it

to conclude with verse 24, otherwise he would have added a

concluding ornament and subscription as in the case of

Matthew and Luke. The verse is found in all the other

manuscripts and versions with which we are acquainted, and

the question with regard to n* is interesting only from the fact

that a few manuscripts do contain a scholium to the effect

that the verse is an addition (ir/ootrdi/iri;) inserted in the margin

(e£w6ev) by one of the scholars (tivos twv ifiiXoirovwv),1 and

afterwards incorporated in the text by another without the

knowledge of the former (/caTaye'eroc (?) Se <=<ra>6ev ayvoia tv\ov

toC TrpwTov ypa<pews viro tivos twv iraXaiZv fxev, ovk aicpiftwv

Se, Kai p.epot ti/c rod evayyeXiov ypa<fifj<; ycvofievov). This

entire note, however, is evidently no more than an inference

drawn from the contents of the verse, as the Syriac Com-mentary of Theodore shows. See further, Zahn, Einleitung,

ii. 495, and the reference to the Commentary of Ishodad

in Sachau's VerzeicJinis der syrisclten Handschriften in Berlin,

P- 3°7-

With respect to the pericope adulterae, on the other hand,

we may be quite certain that it did not originally stand in the

1 This description is elsewhere understood as applying to Theodore of

Mopsuestia.

JOHN.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 283

position it now occupies (vii. 53—viii. 11), nor indeed in John's

Gospel at all, although the decision of the Holy Office of the

13th February 1897, which was confirmed by the Pope twodays later, obliges Catholic exegetes to hold it as genuine. It

is omitted in a great many manuscripts and versions

—

e.g. in

» B L T. A and C are defective here, but the amount of

space shows that they could not have contained it. It is

omitted in the Syriac and Egyptian versions, in the Armenianand the Gothic, in some Old Latin codices, and in the earliest

of the Greek and Latin Fathers. On the other hand it is

found in all the manuscripts of Jerome and in Codex D,which is the only one of the earlier Greek manuscripts to

contain it. In some minuscules and later Armenian manu-scripts it stands at the end of the fourth Gospel, where nowWestcott and Hort put it. In minuscule 225, written in the

year 1192, it follows vii. 36; in the Georgian version it comesafter vii. 44; while in the Ferrar Group

—

i.e. in minuscules 13,

69, 124, 346, 556—it is inserted after Luke xxi. 38. Its in-

sertion after vii. 36 is probably the result of an accidental

error. In the Greek Lectionaries the liturgy for Whitsundaybegins at verse 37 and extends to verse 52, followed by viii. 12,

so that the pericope was, by mistake, inserted before insteadof after this lection. Its position in the Georgian version is

the more remarkable, seeing that in the Old Latin Codex b,

which contained the pericope by the first hand, the entire

passage from vii. 44-viii. 12 has been erased. As a probableexplanation of its position in the Ferrar Group after Lukexxi. 38, it has been suggested that the scribe inserted it thereowing to the resemblance between Luke xxi. 37 and Johnviii. 1, and also between Luke xxi. 38 (wpQpi^e) and Johnviii. 2 (SpOpov). Harris thinks that its proper place is in Johnbetween chapters v. and vi., because reference is made in

v. 45,46 to the Mosaic Law, which is also mentioned in viii. 5.

But the remarkable thing is that here again the text of Ddiffers in a conspicuous manner from that of the other wit-

nesses. In viii. 2 the words ko\ ko6i<tik ehihaaicev ainoxx; are

wanting : in verse 4 we meet the sentence iiciretpd£ovTe<; ainov

o'l tepeh ha excoaiv icaTrjyoplav ainov, which does not come till

after verse 5 in the other text : for tiot^etq D has dfiapria : in

verse 5 it reads, Mtai/o-fj? 8e iv tS vop.ip exiXevo-ev rat TOtaira?

XiOdgeiv, for which the other text has iv Se tu vo/mo Maxrfjs

ivereiXaro to? roiavTas Xido/3oXeio-0ai : in verse 1 1, D has

viraye where the other text has iropevov. Now, if two persons

got such an easy sentence as " Moses in the Law commanded

to stone such " to translate from Latin, Hebrew, or any other

language into Greek, one of them might quite well use KeXeveiv'

and XiOd^ew, and the other ivreXXeo-Oat and XiOofioXelv. And

so the question is suggested whether the two forms in which

the text exists were not derived from different sources, that of

D, e.g., from its Latin. But on closer examination the latter

supposition is seen to be impossible. For the Latin corre-

sponding to e^mo-tv KarTjyopiav ainov is " haberent accusare

eum, ' showing that the Latin translator read Karnyopeiv in

his original,1 and for <u<rre -Kama* iljeXdelv he has " uti omnes

exire," where again the infinitive speaks for the priority of the

Greek. On the other hand, it is to be observed that, accord-

ing to Eusebius (Eccles. Hist., iii. c. 39, sub fin.), Papias knew

and recorded an incident irepl yvvancbs em iroXXais d/«ipTuu?

Bia0Xrj6eicrij<; em rov Kvpiov, f/v to KaO' 'E0paiov<; evdyyeXiov

irepLexet- So that the Gospel according to the Hebrews (i.e.

the Palestinian Jewish Christians) contained a narrative

similar to this, we may say quite confidently, contained this

narrative. From that Gospel it was taken and inserted in

some manuscripts after Luke xxi., in others after John vii.

By the time of Augustine it was so widely propagated in the

Latin that he thought it had been removed from certain

manuscripts by people of weak faith, or rather by enemies of

the true faith, " credo metuentes peccandi immunitatem dari

mulieribus suis." The pericope is no part of John's Gospel,

though it belongs to the oldest stock of evangelic tradition.

1 The same variation occurs in Luke vi, 7, where K* 13 S X read Kcmiyoptiv

(Ka-rqyofiriam D), while K« AEF have Karijyoplav.

JOHN-1 CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 285

On the question whether it may not originally have stood

between Mark xii. 17 and xii. 18, and so between Luke xx.26

and xx. 27, see Holtzmann in the ThLz., 1898, col. 536 f

Vide supra, p. 66.

i. 5. Zahn raises the question what word Ephraem found in

his copy ofthe Diatessaron corresponding to KariXafie, seeing he

gives vicil. In this connection I might (with the proviso that

the reading may be more easily explained from the Armenian)

point out that the Syriac word aSntrn corresponds to /caraXa-

fierwo-av in Sirach xxiii. 6. This stands elsewhere for ap\u>,

Beo-iro^w, efowtajio, Karaicvpieuw, Kvpievw, Kparoi. EQ3 also

frequently represents the Greek KaraXapfidvetv. The Sinai-

Syriac for John i. 5 is unfortunately lost.

i. 13. The reading 8? eyevwjOri is, so far as is known

at present, attested by Latin witnesses only, " qui natus est."

But as Zahn is careful to point out (Einl., ii. 518), it did not

originate on Latin soil, for Justin presupposes it, and, more-

over, Irenaeus constantly applies the passage to the Incarna-

tion, while the Valentinians, who had the usual text, were

accused by Tertullian of falsification. And it is not proved

that the two last-mentioned used anything but a Greek Bible.

i, 17. According to early testimony, this verse, so frequently

quoted since the time of Ritschl, once ran :" The Law was

given by Moses, but its truth came by Jesus." See Zahn,

Forsch., i. 121, 248.

i. 18. Zahn agrees with Hort in holding that the originality

of the reading (wvoyevrj'} 6eb<; (without the article) is established.

See Westcott and Hort, Notes on Select Readings ; Zahn,

Einleitung, ii. 544, 557 ; Westcott, Commentary on John, in loco.

It may be mentioned here that Codex Monacensis of Origen's

i vlis

Commentary on the Gospel of John has fiovoyevr)? Oeo? with

and wo? both written above the line in a later hand. This gave

rise in the Codex Regius to the reading 6 tiovoyevrjs wo? fleo?.

i. 28. Is it firjdafiapd or fir)Qaviq ? The former is exhibited by

the Sinai-Syriac, the Curetonian, and the margin of the Hark-

lean, and the latter by the other three Syriac, and the Arabic

Diatessaron. With regard to the former, is it the case, as is

supposed by many, that it is due simply to a conjecture of

Origen, and that Syrcu and Syrsi" took it from him ? Accord-

ing to Zahn {GK., i. 406), Hilgenfeld pointed in this direction

in the ZfwTh., 1883, 119. See also Lagrange, Origene, la

critique textuelle et la tradition topographiquc (Revue Biblique,

iv., 1895, pp. 501-524). Origen explains (iriOavia as oIko<;

viraxorjs, and the Syriac as " place of praise." Compare on

this the much-discussed passage in the Gospel of Peter

(viraKor) rjKovero, c. xi.). BrjOa^apd, on the other hand, he

interprets as oIkos KaTa<ricevrj<;, so that he must either have

spelt it Bethbara, N-13 n<3, as in Jud. vii. 24, or taken it as

Beth-ha-bara. It is spelt BrjOaafiapd in Lagarde's Onomastica

Sacra, 240, 12, and Bethabara in 108, 6 (Bethbaara, Codex

B). Jerome (see Onomastica Sacra) interpreted the name as

" domus humilis ( = ?) vel vesperae " in Joshua xv. 6, as " domus

multa vel gravis " in xv. 59, and as dowcijTo? in xv. 61, follow-

ing Symmachus. Luther had Betharaba, but in three im-

pressions of the New Testament and in three of the Postils he

had Bethabara (according to Bindseil-Niemeyer), and in the

margin Bethbara, with a note in which reference is rightly made

to Jud. vii. 24, "ut mysterium consonet." See my German or

Greek-German New Testament. It may be asked if " Ainon "

in John iii. 23 has any connection with Bethania. Compare

fflJJj rvn in Jos. xv. 59. For iv Alva>v e has in eremo and f has

in deserto. How is this to be explained ? Compare Zahn,

Einleitung, ii. 561.

i. 34. For vto? N*, Syrc", Syrsl

", and e read e/c\€KTO?. D is here

defective. Zahn thinks the latter reading is original, and the

former an example of an early and widely current alteration.

Westcott and Hort insert cacXc/cto? among their Noteworthy Re-

jected Readings. The two readings are combined in some manu-

scripts " electus Alius Dei." See Zahn, Eini, ii. 515, 544, 557.

i. 41. Zahn here decides for the nominative irpSnos. Both

the disciples of John who attached themselves to Jesus found


their brother, but Andrew was the first to do so. See Ein-

leitung, ii. 477 f.

ii. 2. In his Commentary on the Gospels, extant in the

Armenian only, we find Ephraem saying, "Graecus scribit

recubuit et defecit vinum" (§ 53), which shows that he had a

Greek exemplar before him containing the itacism inXldrj for

iicKqfh). See Zahn, Forsc/i., i. 62, 1 27, and compare Luke xiv. 8,

where Antiochus, Homil., iii., has KaraK\i6rn for k\t]0tjs.

ii. 3. Zahn is perhaps right when he says that no critic

need doubt for a moment that the original reading is the

longer, genuinely Semitic text exhibited by n*, the Harklean

Syriac, and the best Latin manuscripts. D is defective, as

also Syr™ and Syr,ln.

iii. 5. ffaaiXeiav twv oupavtov is attested only by N*, a few

minuscules, by c m, and certain early Fathers, in place of

fja<n\eiav tov 6eov, which has now the support of the Sinai-

Syriac. Zahn thinks the former reading to be correct (Ein-

leitung, ii. 294). If that is so, this will be the only place where

the expression is found in the New Testament outside the

Gospel according to Matthew, where it occurs some thirty-

three or thirty-four times. See note on " The Kingdom of

Heaven " in the Expository Times for February 1896, p. 236 ff.

iii. 24. Zahn (Einl., ii. 515) thinks that the omission of the

article before <f>v\aKrjv shows that there was some uncertainty

regarding the fact mentioned by John. This, however, is

open to question. That the insertion or omission of the

article may be of importance is shown by such examples as

John v. 1 ; Matthew xxii. 23 ; Acts xvi. 6;James ii. 2.

iii. 34. Our knowledge of the text of the Sinai-Syriac here

rests solely on the last reading of Mrs. Lewis: " Not accord-

ing to his measure gave (or, gives) God the Father." This

rendering, as well as the insertion of o 0eo? in many Greek

texts, is due to the fact that m/evfia was not taken as the

subject of the sentence.

iv. 1. For 6 Kvpwf Tischendorf reads o 'Itjo-oOs, which is prob-

ably correct. 'O icvpio<; is elsewhere found only three times

in John—viz., vi. 23, xi. 2, xx. 20. According to Zahn (Einl.,

ii. 391) the first two passages are explanations outside the

Gospel narrative interjected by the evangelist, while the words

in the last passage are spoken from the point of view of the

disciples.

iv. 9. The words oil yap cruy^o&Wat 'lovScuoi 2a/*ap«ratc

were retained by Lachmann and by Tischendorf in his

seventh edition, because the only authorities known at that

time for their omission were D a b e. But when the first

hand of x appeared in confirmation of the testimony of these

witnesses, the words were dropped by Tischendorf and

bracketed by Westcott and Hort. Syrcu and Syr*ln insert

them, and perhaps Tatian. Zahn is inclined to admit them.

" The classic brevity of the interjected explanation speaks for

its genuineness." See his Einleitung, ii. 549.

v. 1. f/ iopTtj is supported by x C etc., and eoprr) by A B Detc. On the chronology, see Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 516.

v. 3#, 4. After ^rjpwv D alone inserts rrapaXimicwv, and then

adds, with A2 C31 T A A II (this last, however, with asterisks),

the clause fKBe^op-eixov rrjv tov vSaro<; kIvt)<jw. The shorter

text is given by x A* B C* L. The whole of the fourth verse

is omitted by x B C* D, 33, 157, 314. In this case D and Achange sides. Within the limits of the verse there are a

great many variations, which show that it is a very early

addition. Some of the words are hapax legomena, like 8>/7roTe,

Tapaxrj, voatjfia. Zahn thinks the gloss may have been one of

the "expositions" of Papias. According to the Commentaryof Ishodad, Theodore of Mopsuestia did not consider this

verse as part of the Gospel of John (Sachau, Verzeichnis der

syrischen Handschriften, p. 308). See Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 557.

Cyril says the incident occurred at Pentecost.

v. 36. Zahn {Einl., ii. 557) calls fielfav a difficult reading,

and one that could not have been invented :" I, as a Greater

than John, have the witness of God."

vii. 8. oinrat has taken the place of ovk in all the uncials

except x D K M P, a fact which reveals its antiquity. Owe


is retained also by Syrcu and Syrsln. The change was intro-

duced to obviate the inconsistency between vii. 8 and vii. 10.

Porphyry (apud Jerome, Contra Pelagium, ii. 17) on the

ground of ovk, accused Jesus of " inconstantia et mutatio,"

and Schopenhauer (Grundprobleme der Ethik, 2nd edition,

p. 225) cited this passage as justifying an occasional falsehood,

saying that "Jesus Christ himself on one occasion uttered anintentional untruth." See Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 547.

vii. 15. See Addenda, p. xvi.

viii. 57. According to the authority cited in the ThLz.,

1899, p. 176, the first hand of Codex B is supposed to havewritten eopaxeo-e: "the final e has been erased, and the e

preceding it changed into a." I have examined the photo-graph of B in the Stuttgart Library, and can find no trace ofan e ever having stood after a. The blank space of the size

of two letters is meant to divide the sentences. It is thecase, however, though neither Tischendorf, Fabiani, nor thepamphlet of 188 1 mentions it, that the first hand wrote eopaices,

which was then made into e<upa/ca? by means of a strokedrawn through the o. The matter is not insignificant in viewof what is said in Westcott and Hort's Notes on Orthography,Appendix, p. 168. Burkitt supposes that eopaiceae was thereading of the ancestor of x B ( Texts and Studies, vol. v. 5. p. ix). 1

1 When examining Codex B I took occasion to look at certain other passages,and discovered some strange mistakes in Tischendorfs statements with regard tothat manuscript, as I did previously in the case of Codex D. In 3 John 13 B hasiAAi for 4\A\ on which Tischendorf has no note. Westcott and Hort mentionthe passage in their Notes on Orthography, ii. p. 153, but say nothing about B.On Jude 5 we find Tischendorf saying in his Apparatus : «iSot«, sine uMar cumABC2 .... s-(Gb°») a(jd. „„„ cum „ K L. But u/iaj stands quite plain inB. Had they known this, Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort would certainlyhave printed their text differently. How far back this false testimony with regardto B extends I am unable to certify. It is found in TischendorPs seventh editionof 1859, and in Huther's Commentary of the same date. I repeat my Ceterumcenseo, that two or three sharp eyes should really revise the statements currentabout H. Thi> one is repeated from Tischendorf by Baljon, Weiss, and aU ourCommentators. At the same time, Weiss has quite properly inserted „M„ in histext, on the ground that while there was no occasion for its interpolation itsomission is quite conceivable. He will, no doubt, be gratified to see his reasoningconfirmed by this weighty testimony afforded by Codex B.

T

xii. 7. Terrjpriicev, without ha, has the support of a compara-

tively large number of manuscripts. Peerlkamp and De Koe

read ha rt . . . . rer^Kev ; Zahn (Einl., ii. 518) has no

doubt that the correct reading is ha .... Toprjo-y, and that

it was replaced by rerripr^Kev (without ha) on the ground that

this Mary was not among the women who came to the

sepulchre to anoint the body of Jesus. He says that the true

text presupposes that Mary would like to use the remainder

of the ointment to anoint the body of Jesus after his death,

and that the words of Jesus were intended to prevent Mary

and the disciples afterwards following the suggestion of Judas,

xiii. 2. The change of a single letter here is important from

a harmonistic point of view. s'BL read Seitrvov yivo/ievov,

i.e., " during supper," but s'AD have Setirvov yevofievov, which

means " after supper." Compare Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 520.

xiii. 34. On the form in which this saying was cited by the

Marcionites, see Zahn, GK. i 678.

xviii. 12 ff. The Sinai-Syriac, probably following Tatian,

gives the following arrangement of the verses—viz., 12, 13,

24, 14, 15, 19-23, 16-18, 25-28. On this see Zahn, Einl.,

ii. 521. Spitta would arrange the verses, 12, 13, 19-23, 24, 14,

15-18, 25^ 27,28. See Zahn, Einl., ii. 558. It does some-

times happen that a leaf of a manuscript is misplaced, but it

is hard to account for such transpositions as these. Compare

the Journal of Theological Studies, October 1900, p. 141 f.

xix. 5. Though not properly connected with the criticism

of the text, the question may be asked here, by way of a

contribution to a subject much discussed of late, whether

the expression iSov 6 avdpanro<; may not be connected with

KL"3 "a. Compare 6 av9pa>iro<; and o vibt tov dvOpdmov in

Mark ii. 27, 28. In this passage of John, B omits the article

before av6pa>Tros, reading ISoii avOpanros simply. See the

Expository Times, November 1899, p. 62 ff., "The Name Son

of Man and the Messianic Consciousness of Jesus," where

Schmiedel's article with the same title in the Protestantische

Monatshefte is noticed.

ACTS.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 291

xix. 37. The quotation, according to Zahn, is made from

the Hebrew. The LXX has eirt^Xe^ovrat irpos fie avQ' 8>v

KUTwpxwavro. The later Greek versions all seem to have kept

the first, three words as in the LXX but to have variously

corrected the second clause, for which Aquila gives w 5

e&Kevrio-av, Theodotion «r ov egeKevryo-av, Symmachus

efiirpordev eTre£eicei>Tn<rav. Compare with this Apoc. i. 7, oiTiwy

avrov e^KevTijcrav ; Barnabas vii. 9, oifrovrai avrov ....

KaraKtvTri<ravT€$\ ]\XSt\n,Dial. 32, eirtyvwo-eade ei? ov egeKevrfaaTe.

It has accordingly been supposed that John in the Gospel

and Apocalypse followed some unknown Greek version which

exhibited the characteristic forms oxfsovrai (found only in

John and Barnabas) and elt ov ifctcevrqarav (given by John,

Justin, Theodotion, and partly by Aquila). But this sup-

position is simply a proof of unwillingness to admit a palpable

fact—viz., that in the Gospel and Apocalypse John gives an

independent rendering of the original text of Zechariah xii. 10,

and that Barnabas and Justin follow John. See Zahn,

Einleitung, ii. 563.

The subscriptions state that the fourth Gospel was written

thirty or thirty-two years after the Ascension, at Ephesus, in

the reign of Nero, or, as some say, of Domitian. It is also

said to have been published by Gaius, the host of the Apostles

(Sta Tai'ov tov ^evoSo\ov tu>v airocrrokwv). Others say that it

was dictated to Papias of Hierapolis the disciple of the

Apostle. On the alleged autograph (!8i6xeipov) preserved at

Ephesus, see above, p. 30.

Acts.

It would unduly enlarge the extent of this work were I to

go on mentioning all the passages in the Acts that are moreor less striking from the textual point of view. This book has

already been more frequently referred to than the others. I

would again refer the student to Zahn's Introduction. I agree

with that writer in thinking it impossible in many cases to

292 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [ACTS.

suppose that a scholiast manufactured the text we now find in

Codex D with no other material before him save the usual text

and his inkhorn. At the same time there is undoubtedly room

for much diversity of opinion with respect to many matters of

detail. I would instance such a simple narrative as that of

Acts iii. 1-5, and ask what reasonable ground a copyist could

have had for altering o? into outoj, areviaas into efifiXtyas,

/3\e\Jfav into areWoe, eireixex into arei/lo-as or vice versa, or for

omitting or inserting virapx<»v or Aa^eiV. 1 Such changes

might, however, be introduced by an author who writes a

passage twice over. Without himself being fully conscious of

his reasons for doing so, he might substitute a final construc-

tion for a participle, introduce or remove an asyndeton, replace

one word by its synonym, and make all the striking linguistic

changes which a comparison of the two texts reveals.

Time will show whether I am right in my conjecture that

efiapvvaTe in iii. 14 is due to an error in translation. In illustra-

tion of the interchange of Xaou and Koo-pouin ii. 47, I have cited

in Philologica Sacra, p. 39, a number of instances of the con-

fusion of av or KDV with uhv or no'jy, to which I would now add

Daniel viii. 19, Sirach xlv. 7; xlvii. 4; Matt. i. 21 (in the

Curetonian Syriac). Compare also Eusebius, Eccles. Hist.,

iv. 15, 26; History of Mary, ix. 17; xiv. 11 (ed. Budge).

Whether the change in the passage in question is really to be

explained in this way, or by the supposition of an "anti-Judaic

tendency," as Corssen prefers (Gottinger gelehrte Anzeigen,

1896, vi. 444), may be left an open question for the present. I

would just point to one thing in favour of my view, and in

answer to what Zahn says in his Einkitung, ii. 423. He says

there : " Linguistic considerations are against the supposition

that a pure Greek like Luke, the physician of Antioch, was

1 Further instances of changes requiring investigation are :—tpuTar and

iropoKaXtii' ; opai> and Afa^m ; 07*11' and iptpttv ; «px«"*«' and vwayuv; vwapx'tr

and tifii ; cvv and fitra ; tit and tv ;ws, /i«XP' and »XP' i fvnoy and

tunpooetv ; tTtpos and a\\os ; oikoj and oikio ; iroit and vaiSioi' ; ro\is and Kwpq ;

\aos and ox^oj ; vaos and itpor ; <ptyyos and <pus ; active and middle voice,

apx e0""a '' etc '

ACTS] CRITICAL NOTES ON VAKluUS PASSAGES. 293

able to read a Hebrew book. For a thousand Jews (Syrians

and Copts) who were able at that time to read, write, and speak

Greek, there would be at most a single Greek possessed

of a corresponding knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic. And

I confess that I have hitherto sought in vain for this rara avis."

Quite true, but how do we know that the physician of Antioch

was a pure Greek? All the Prologues to the Gospels unani-

mously call him " natione Syrus." I have pointed out in myPhilologica Sacra, p. 13, what is very generally admitted, that

in the New Testament "EXXi/cey denotes simply the "heathen,"

whether they speak Greek or not. 1 The woman mentioned in

Mark vii. 26 was a 'EXXijw? Xvpo- <PoivtKi<rcra to yeVor, and in

the same way Luke was a^XXije of Antioch (Acts xi. 20), but

2,vpos to ye'i/oc. He is one of the thousand who could read,

write, and speak Greek, though he was not above making such

a mistake in translation when using a Hebrew or Aramaic

book as I think he certainly does in Luke xi. 41, and as I aminclined to think he does in Acts iii. 14, till I find a better

explanation of the reading eBapvvare than has yet been given.2

I am glad to see from Zahn that more than seventy years ago,

in his dissertation entitled De Codice Cantabrigiensi (1827),

p. 16, Schultz suggested that the text of D may perhaps be

1 Sec, however, Romans i. 14, and compare Zahn, Einl., i. 263.

—

Tr.8

I have already (p. 37) referred to the frequency with which mistakes, often

quite incredible mistakes, in translation occur. A few additional instances maybe cited here.

There is, for example, that of Ephraem in John ii. 2, mentioned above, p. 287.

According to Aphraates 41, 16, Jesus promised to the mourners pDKOFIJ I'D?!,

i.e. that they should be cntrtated. The writer of the text, therefore, that Aphraates

used, must have taken Tafmna\,ty here in the sense of "to entreat." See Zahn,

I'oruhttngeu, i. 78.

The same writer (383, 16) renders the words in Luke xvi. 25 cur ii JJi wapaxa-

Xflrai in the form H3D rVV3 ]*T K1DV, i.e. " but to-day thou enlreatest of him ",

where raptxnaKfir is again taken in the sense of " to entreat ", though a different

word is used for it. See Zahn, ibid.

Again, Aphraates (390, 4) renders wapixKiKriv {avruv) in Luke vi. 24 i'DnilQ," their prayer, their request." Zahn, ibid.

The last clause of John v. 14 is rendered " that thou mayest have need of nothing

else," where xf"'a must have been read instead of x"/""- Zahn, Forschungen,

i 161 f. Compare also the Syriac text of Apoc. ii. 13 ; viii. 13, etc.

294 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [ACTS.

derived from a Syriac version. According to what I have

said above on Tatian, this view must certainly be admitted as

possible, and I see that it has been revived by Chase.

A new solution of the textual problem in Acts has been

suggested by Aug. Pott (Der abendldndische Text der Apostel-

geschichte und die Wir-Quelle, Leipzig, 1900). He thinks that

the original narrative drawn up by Luke existed as a separate

work for some time after it had been worked up into our

canonical Acts, and that notes were taken from the former and

inserted in the margin of the latter, and in this way came into

the text of Codex D and its associates. Against this, how-

ever, there is the fact that similar problems emerge in the

Gospel of Luke where this distinction cannot be made.

For the sake of brevity I append notes to a few passages only

of Acts.

But at the outset I must express my surprise that Wendt,

even in his eighth edition of 1899, repeats the statement that

the title of the book in D is irpafi? airo<rr6\u>v. Even without

the assurance given by Blass in his Grammatik, § iii. 1, 2, it

should be borne in mind that " laxnv stands equally for both

Baxnv and Saxreiv," and that accordingly irpafc may be either

irpa^eii or 7rpafi?. In the case before us it is the former. As

illustrations take the following from D in Acts :

—

Swa/u,

iii. 12, iv. 7 ; vum, vi. 7 ; .?, iv. 30; /«i«w rpi<t, vii. 20 ;and

conversely ffKet-^evs neyaXr), vii. II;

p.ipet<;, viii. 21 ;Swap-eati

and c777/iu(H? side by side in ii. 22. Compare also Mark vi. 2

;

vi. 14 ; xiii. 25 ; Luke xxi. 26 ; Acts viii. I 3 ;(Swa/uv Totamai

;

at Svvap.i<; ; Swa/tK fieydKas;). It is true that in every case in

which the title is written out, which occurs only five times

altogether, it is 7r/oafi?, but this is to be understood as plural,

like actus in the Latin. It came afterwards to be used as

singular in the Syriac (Zahn, Einl., ii. 370, 383, 388), but that

is nothing strange. We say "the Times says"\and we

have an analogy in the use of the word biblia in the Middle

Ages when the neuter plural biblia bibliorum became biblia

bibliae (singular feminine).

ACTS.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 295

i 23 It is a matter of commentary rather than of textual

criticism, but Wendt, in his eighth edition, asserts that nothing

further is known of this Joseph surnamed Justus. Eusebius,

on the authority of Papias, mentions wapdSofrv wept lowrnv

Thv brucbflhna Bapvapav worn, <fc hPwpw fapfuiKov

«WtWo? koI wSfe itfik 8^ Tr,„ rov Kvpiov yfa, bnpwarm

(Eccles. Hist., iii. 39)- The name of Aristion is inserted in the

margin of this passage in Rufinus's Latin translation of

Eusebius. This marginal gloss acquires a peculiar importance

from the fact that the name Ariston is inserted in the Etsch-

miadzin manuscript of the Gospels over Mark xvi. 9-20,

apparently ascribing these verses or their main contents to

him. Compare Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 231, and see Plate IX.

iv. 6. On the reading 'WoAk in D for 'Iwdvm,^, see above,

iv. 24. 1 See Harris, Two Important Glosses in the Codex

v. 39. I Besae, Expositor, November 1900, pp. 394-4°0.

xi. 27, 28. In his treatise, " On the Original Text of Acts

xi. 27, 28 " (Berliner Sitz.-Berichte, Heft 17), Harnack comes

to the conclusion that the Western text here cannot be the

original.

xv. 20, 21. On Harnack's examination of the Apostolic

Decree, see Selbie in the Expository Times for June 1899,

p. 395. Harnack comes to the same results as Zahn, but

draws the opposite conclusion from them. See above, p. 232 f.

xvi. 6. The article is omitted before TaKaTiic^p x(i,Pav bY

x A B C D minuscules. For this Blass, on the authority of p,

which reads "Galatie regiones," substitutes to? TdXATiKas

Xwpapvylav as an adjective (so Wendt8) ; it might still be

rendered " through Phrygia and Galatian territory."

xvii. 27. In my Philologica Sacra, p. 42, I say that it was

easier to change to delov (/3) into rov 6eov (a) than vice versa.

To this Wendt replies in his eighth edition, p. 294, by saying,

" In all probability offence was taken at the representation of

2y6 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [ACTS.

God himself as an object of to ^Xa<j>av. ' Yes, there is a

considerable difference between Hector alive and Hector dead,

and of the latter it could be truly said {Iliad, xxii. 372 f.)

:

rQ8e Be ti? eXireaKev IBiav e? tt\ij<tIov aWov'12 ttottoi % fx.a\a Bij p.aXaK(i)repo<; ap,<pa<l>da<rQai.

But the delov of which Paul speaks on the Areopagus is mostassuredly no more and no less a noli me tangere than the fled?.

Among the witnesses in support of to Be'iov is Clement of

Alexandria. I can only repeat what Zahn says :" Whoever

is careful to bear in mind that our earliest manuscripts are

some two hundred years later than Marcion, Tatian, andIrenjeus, and has any sense of the difference between naive

originality and a regularity due to liturgical, dogmatic, andstylistic considerations," cannot but judge differently with

respect to /?.

xviii. 3. See my article, " The Handicraft of St. Paul," in

the American Journal of Biblical Literature, xi. 2, 1892, onlorarius as the Syriac rendering of oK-qvo-rrotos = i/mji/toto'/ao?,

o-KVTOTOfio*;, leather-cutter, and the notes in the Expository

Times for December 1896, and January and March 1897.

Chrysostom calls Paul <tkvtot6ho<;, and in the Inventio

Sanctae Cruris, it is said, "exercebat artem scaenographiam."

This last word I have explained as a confusion with <ricr)vop-

pa<f>iav, as Professor Ramsay also does. In the CompendiousSyriac Dictionary of. J. Payne Smith (which must not beconfounded with the Thesaurus of her father), lorarius is

explained as " a maker of rough cloth for tents or horse-

cloths." But there is nothing said about tents even by the

Syriac scholiasts. The correct meaning will be found in

Brockelmann. Celsus (Origen, Contra Celsum, vi. 33) speaksof eKeivos imb Kprj/ivov eppififiivos, fj «? [iapaOpoi* eWp.ei/09, j)

trfXpvy TreTTviyfiiiHv;, rj itki/toto/ios, fj \idol-6o<;, r) aihrfpevs.

1'aul is evidently referred to after Judas Iscariot, but whoare meant by Xido^oot and crtSr)pev<;?

xix. 6. I fail to understand how anyone can dismiss D here

PAUL.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 297

with the remark, " On account of Paul's express declaration as

to the desirability of the gift of tongues being supplemented

by that of interpretation (1 Cor. xiv. 5, 13, 27), this addition

seemed to be required in this case where Paul communicatedthe gifts of the Spirit" ( Meyer-Wendt, eighth edition, p. 312).

xx. 4. For Aep(3aio<; D* has Aovftepios or Aovffpux;, and gdoverius. Moreover, D* has Bepweuoy, not Repvcuos, as Tischen-

dorf has it. Valckenaer and Blass insert a comma after Paw?,

and substitute Be for kcu after Aepficuos, with the result that

Gaius becomes a Thessalonian, and Timothy a Derbean.

For this Zahn sees no necessity. See his Einleitung, i. 149.

xxviii. 16. On crrpaTOTreSap^Tj? (/9) which Gigas renders

princeps peregrinorum, see note on xxvii. 1, in Knowling's Acts

of the Apostles, Expositor's Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 516;article "Julius" in Hastings' Bible Dictionary; Ramsay in

the Expositor, November 1900; Zahn, Einleitung, i. 389 f.

Wendt (eighth edition, p. 420) omits the words in xxviii. 16,

on the ground that their omission either by mistake or designis very unlikely, but their insertion, on the other hand, quite

intelligible. This only shows how little reliance can be placed

on subjective criticism.

We are not yet sufficiently well acquainted with the sub-scriptions of the minuscules, but it may be cited here that in

one of them Luke is called o-we'/cS^/io? HavXov, and in another0et)y6po<! 6 avyypdilra? oirro? efnrvevtrei Beta.

Pauline Epistles.

In the arrangement of the books of the New Testament,it has become customary to follow the order adopted byTischendorf and Westcott and Hort, who place the CatholicEpistles before the Pauline. In the Stuttgart edition of theNew Testament, however, I have, in accordance with earlierusage, put the Pauline Epistles after the Gospels and Acts.Considering what is said by Hort himself in § 422 of hisIntroduction, and also what we find in No. 6 of Berger's List

298 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [PAULINE

of the various arrangements of the books of the New Testa-

ment (Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 339 f.), it might have been

more correct to have put Paul immediately after the Gospels, as

in Codex Sinaiticus. But seeing that the Latin and German

Bibles at present exhibit the order, Gospels, Acts, Pauline

Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and that Meyer's Commentary is

also arranged on this principle, I have retained this arrange-

ment for the sake of uniformity.

Here again I must refer the student for matters of detail to

larger works, especially to Zahn's Einleitung. A few of the

more important passages will be considered in the sequel, but

previously something may be said here of the origin and

circulation of the collective writings of Paul.

1. Paul, accompanied by Silvanus and Timothy, came from

Philippi to Thessalonica on his second missionary journey,

somewhere about the year 54, though Harnack puts it as

early as 49-50. There he gathered together a church in the

short space of three or four weeks, if we may credit the

account given in Acts xvii. 2 in this particular. At all

events he was not long there. Disturbances similar to those

in Philippi arose, which compelled him to leave the city. Hecame to Athens. In his anxiety over the internal and

external circumstances of the newly-founded church at

Thessalonica, he sent back Timothy from Athens to confirm

those he had left behind. When his messenger returned he

wrote to the Thessalonian Church, in all probability not from

Athens but from Corinth, where he had gone in the interval

of Timothy's absence. This letter we know as the First

Epistle to the Thessalonians. It is uncertain whether the

apostle, as in most other cases, dictated the epistle, writing

only the salutation and concluding benediction with his own

hand (compare 2 Thess. iii. 17:0 acnracrfibi tj) enfj £«pl

IlavXov, o iariv at]/xelov ev Trday iirKnoXrj' ovra><; ypd<f>a>),1 or

1 On the custom of dictating letters, see Norden, Die anlikc Kumtprosa (1898),

p. 954 ff. On the autograph additions to the letters of the Emperor Julian, see

Bidez and Cumont, Recherches etc., p. 19 (see above, p. 1 74).

EPISTLES.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 299

whether he wrote it all himself in large letters, as he did in

the case of the Epistle to the Galatians which he wrote

nrfKUoii; ypd/tficun (Gal. vi. Ii), either on account of someaffection of the eyes or because he was a craftsman and hadlittle practice in writing. The epistle was intended for the

entire church at Thessalonica, of which Aristarchus, Secundus,

and perhaps also Gaius (see above, on Acts xx. 4), are knownto us by name. It was probably addressed to the oldest, or

most prominent, or most active member of the Christian com-munity. At the close of the epistle, the writer expressly

adjures them to see that it is read by all the brethren. It

would, therefore, be read aloud at the next meeting of the

congregation. There and then, some poor slave or agedwoman would ask to have the letter for the purpose of

copying it. What became of the original we do not know.In the very first copy that was made, mistakes and alterations

would make their appearance, and these would be multiplied

with every fresh copy.

2. At the close of the Epistle to the Colossians (iv. 16), Paulasks that when they have read it, they will see that it is also

read in the Church of Laodicaeans, and that they themselvesread the epistle from Laodicaea (tj?i/ e* AaoSucelas). Fromthis it has generally been supposed that an epistle of Paulto Laodicaea has been lost. An epistle with this title wasrestored at a very early date, in the second century. It is

no longer extant in Greek, but many Latin manuscripts andeditions of the Bible contain it, and it is also found in the pre-

Lutheran German Bibles. But the epistle from Laodicaeareferred to by the Apostle may perhaps have been thecircular letter which we now know as the Epistle to theEphesians, and which may have been intended to go, amongother places, to Laodicaea, and from there to Colossae. How-ever that may be, we see that at a very early date there wereepistles of Paul to various places, and that copies of thesemight be made at each place, and still further distributed.

A parallel case is that of the Koran, the different recensions

300 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [PAULINE

of which are distinguished according to the cities whence they

originated. Even at that time, therefore, the beginnings of a

collection of the Pauline Epistles might be made. By the

time that the Second Epistle of Peter was written, it was

known that " brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to

him, had written many epistles, in which were some things

hard to be understood" (2 Peter iii. 15).

3. When a great man dies, we have usually a collection of

the letters he received in his lifetime, but not of those he him-

self wrote, and to collect these last is frequently a matter

of considerable difficulty. We have therefore reason to con-

gratulate ourselves that we have, within the covers of the New

Testament, epistles of Paul addressed to the most diverse

regions—to Macedonia (1 and 2 Thess., Philippians),to Achaia

(1 and 2 Corinthians), to Asia Minor (Ephesians, Colossians,

Galatians), and to Italy (Romans), not to speak of the so-called

Pastoral or private Epistles—epistles, moreover, the dates of

which extend over a period of at least eight years. 1 It is, of

course, evident that the appearance of an epistle in this collec-

tion is not in itself a guarantee of Pauline authorship. But

on the 'other hand, the collection must have been made at a

very early date, because we find, almost without exception,

not only the same number of Pauline epistles, but also the

same order of their arrangement. There is scarcely any

evidence of the circulation of a particular epistle by itself.

True, the order now usually adopted, which has been the pre-

vailing order from the fourth century onwards and which

seems, for the most part, to arrange the epistles according to

their length (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephe-

sians, and so on), is not the original. In the Muratorian Canon

(so called from its discoverer), which is a very old catalogue of

the books of the Bible, the Epistles to the Corinthians stand

1 What an amount of perplexity would have been avoided had Paul been in the

way of dating his letters exactly, or had the copyists preserved the dates, supposing

they were there originally I One, but only one, of the epistles of Ignatius, bears a

date—vii. that to the Romans : lypw^a i/iir ToDra rp »pi iw(* Ka\aySuf 2«»-

TijtjBptai' (x. 3).

EPISTLES.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 3OI

at the head of the collection and that to the Romans at the

end. Tertullian had the same arrangement, while Marcion,

for dogmatic reasons apparently, put Galatians first, then

1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans. The present condition of our

Epistle to the Romans is also supposed to point to its former

position at the end of Paul's epistles to the churches. In that

epistle the concluding doxology is found at different places,

while many look upon chap. xvi. 1-23 as a separate document,originally intended for Ephesus, which was attached to the

entire collection at the end. Among other varieties of arrange-

ment it may be mentioned that Colossians frequently followed

2 Thessalonians. When and where the first collection tookits rise, and by whom the second arrangement was introduced,

can no longer be determined with certainty. Zahn thinks thefirst originated at Corinth about the year 85, his reason beingthat it seems to be presupposed in the Epistle to the Corinthians

written by Clement of Rome about the year 95. The secondhe would date from Alexandria, between 220 and 260. If wemight suppose that all our extant manuscripts are derived, notfrom separate copies of the Epistles, but from a copy of theearliest collection, it would serve to explain how it comes thatcertain corruptions have found their way into the text of all

our manuscripts

—

e.g. in Colossians ii. 18. On the other hand,the variations at the end of Romans, e.g., are of such a sortthat their origin seems to be anterior to the formation of thecollection.

It is not so difficult to understand how it is that the Epistleto the Hebrews, which, it is certain, was not written by Paul,varies so much with regard to its position in the collection.In the Syriac Bible, and in the majority of later Greek manu-scripts, it comes after all the Pauline epistles, the reason beingthat the Syrian Church did not consider it to be really of thenumber of these. (See Westcott, Bible in the Church, p. 233 £).In the earlier Greek manuscripts, however, it occupies thetenth place, standing between the epistles of Paul to thechurches and the Pastoral Epistles. In the early Sahidic

302 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [ROMANS.

version, and in the Commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia,

it is found between 2 Corinthians and Galatians ; in the parent

manuscript of Codex B it stood between Galatians and Ephe-

sians. In his Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 539 f., Berger gives

seventeen different ways in which the Pauline epistles are

arranged in Latin Bibles—viz., Col., Thess., I Tim. ; Thess.,

Col., 1 Tim.; Phil., Laod., Col.; Col., Laod., Thess.; Col.,

Thess., Laod. ; Thess., Col., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Laod. ; Thess., Col.,

Laod. ; Phil., Laod., Heb. ; Heb., Laod. ; Heb., 1, 2 Tim., Tit,

Phil. ; Apoc, Laod. ; Ephes., Col. ; Gal., Laod., Ephes. ; Ephes.,

1, 2, 3 Cor., Laod.; Phil., Thess., 1 Tim. ; Apoc, 3 Cor.; Col.,

Phil.

Romans.

With regard to the very name and introduction of the

Epistle to the Romans, it is worth observing, that while the

words ei/'Pw/LLn are read in verses 7 and 15 by all our manu-

scripts, with the sole exception of G, their omission by Origen

is attested by the critical work discovered by von der Goltz on

Mount Athos (vide supra, pp. 90, 190), which says that Origen

takes no notice of the words : oure ev Tjj efayiicrei ovre iv to>

pi]Tw fivtjfiovevei. The Latin commentary has them, and pre-

supposes them in the exposition. Our editions of Origen have

hitherto given them once in the Greek as well (iv. 287), but

we must wait for the new edition before we can say with

certainty that this is correct The matter is not devoid of

importance. If the omission is original, then it is possible to

think that Romans, like Hebrews, was originally a circular

letter; while on the other hand, if the words are an integral

part of the epistle, we may suppose with von der Goltz that

they were afterwards dropped when the epistle began to be

read in church, so as to make it applicable to all Christians.

See Jacques Simon, Revue d'Histoire et de Litte'rature religeuses,

iv. 2 (1899), 177 ; Zahn, Einleitung, i. 278 ; TkLbl., 1899, 179.

i. 3. On the Syriac reading "of the house of David," see

Vetter, Der apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief, 1894, p. 25, and my

ROMANS.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 303

Note in the Lectionary published in Studia Sinaitica, vi. (seeabove, p. 106).

i. 13. For oil 6e\u D» G Ambrosiaster read owe olo/xai,

which Zahn thinks sounds more natural, and quite likely to bereplaced by the other expression so common in Paul's epistles.

Einleitung, i. 262.

i. 15. For Ofttv D* reads iv v/uu, G hr' v^w, g in vobis.

i. 16. Marcion was accused of having removed trpSnov or reirparov from his text. This, however, is not so (see Zahn,GK., i. 639; ii. 515). It is also omitted in B G, showing, asZahn thinks, that it was regarded as obnoxious at an earlydate (Einleitung, i. 263). Marcion did, however, drop thequotation from Habakkuk in the next verse.

ii. 16. Marcion in all probability wrote to fvayyekiov with-out fiou, which is now omitted only by 37 d». In the time ofOrigen and in the centuries following, Marcion's discipleslaid emphasis not on /xov, but on the fact that euarfyiXiov is inthe singular number. They charged the Church with havingnot one Gospel, but several. See Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 171.

v. 1. Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weymouth allfollow the mass of the uncials in reading Sjpu/tev, and I wastherefore obliged to give this as the text of my Stuttgartedition of the New Testament For myself, however, I holdwith Scrivener and Weiss that fypn*, is certainly the correctreading. The same mis-spelling occurs in several manu-scripts in John xix. 7,^ vo^v %a>/«*. For the reason ofit, see Schmiedel's Winer, § 19. According to Zahn, ev^aa,must be considered the right reading, and «^fc (verse 2)taken also as subjunctive. See his Einleitung, i. 264.

v. 21. The words toO kvPu>v ij/mJi; were omitted by Erasmusand, therefore, also by Luther. This is not noticed byTischendorf, nor by Baljon, who follows him.

xi. 13. Op.lv Si is read byxAB P, for which D G L have {,uZvyap. Zahn thinks it difficult to say which is right, but thatthe sense is much the same in either case. Einleitung, i. 265 f.

xni. 3. The conjecture tyadoepyf, is thought by Hort to

304 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [ROMANS.

have ;i certain amount of probability {Notes on Select

Readings, in loco). Schmiedel also thinks it deserving of

consideration {Winer, § 19).

xiv. 5. On the omission of yap (15 D G), see Zahn,

Einleitung, i. 266.

xiv. 23. Conclusion of the Epistle. The best discussion of

the Conclusion of the epistle will now be found in Zahn's

Einleitung, vol. i. § 22, pp. 267-298, Die Iutegritdt des

Rbmerbriefs. Compare also Riggenbach, Kritisclie Studien

tiber den Schluss des Rdnierbriefs : two treatises published in

the Neue Jahrbucherfiir deutsche Theologie, Erster Hand, 1 892.

Bonn, 1892 ; Die Adresse des 16. Kapitels des Rbmerbriefs,

pp. 498-525 ; Die Textgeschichte der Doxologie, Rbm. xvi. 25-27

im Zusammenhang mit den iibrigen den Schluss des Rbmerbriefs

betreffenden textkritischen Fragcn crbrtert. Also, F. J. A. Hort,

Prolegomena to the Epistles to the Romans and the Ephesians,

1895 ;Sanday and Headlam, Commentary on Romans.

In certain manuscripts prior to the time of Origen, the

Doxology was found between xiv. 23 and xv. I. It now stands

after xiv. 23 in A L P and about 200 minuscules, while at the

same time the epistle is certainly continued to xv. 13. Bengel

alone has suggested a reason for this. He supposes that the

solemn words in xiv. 23, irav Be o ouk eic iriinew ufiapria i<niv,

were felt to form an unsatisfactory close to a church lection, and

that the doxology was accordingly inserted here. Moreover,

seeing that no part of xvi. 1-25 was included in any lection,

this would be an additional reason for attaching the doxology

to the end of chapter xiv., as otherwise this grand passage

might not be read at all. It must be confessed, however, that

this explanation is not altogether satisfactory.

It is further to be observed that the Benediction is found

sometimes after xvi. 20, sometimes after xvi. 23, and some-times in both places. In the last case it is found under three

conditions : (1) before the doxology, (2) without it, (3) after it.

With regard to the single Benediction, it is inserted after

verse 20 in sARC, and after verse 23 in D G. An explana-

ROMANS.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 305

tion of these variations has frequently been sought in thesupposition that chapter xvi. is part of an epistle addressedto Ephesus, which has in some way been incorporated in theEpistle to the Romans. On this supposition the only questionis whether the whole of chapter xvi. belongs to this Ephesianepistle or only the first twenty verses, while verses 21-23belong to the original Epistle to the Romans. Improbable asthis may appear at the first glance, it admits of an easyexplanation. It may be due to the fact that Romans oncestood at the end of the collection of Pauline epistles. Or wemay suppose that the commendatory epistle for Phcebeaddressed to Ephesus and the Epistle to the Romans werewritten at thesame time, and that in sending them off, thesheet containing the former by some mistake slipped in beforethe last sheet of the Roman epistle. On this view, the first

benediction in verse 20,^ xdpK . . . . jueff b^v, would belongto the Ephesian epistle, while the second, ^ xdpK .... ^rarrdmwv inwv to the Roman. The uncial L would then beright in retaining both, while D E F G will have omittedthe benediction the first time it occurred, and >• ABCthe second time.

At the same time it cannot be disguised that there are diffi-culties in connection with the close of chapter xv. Minuscule48 omits the last verse (33). In verse 32, B reads simply tmex Xapa ?\6w, while the other witnesses have i\0w, and varybetween (Tviavmrai^fxai i^iv and «./a\W£o fieO' vfxwv.

1 Zahnthinks that the original position of the Doxology is afterx.v. 23 and nowhere else. Now the authority for insertingthe Doxology there only is L and many minuscules, A P and afew m.nuscules having it in both places. If Zahn is rightshould not the testimony of L be accepted in other places as

and^r Tu ;

erbS

I

CO" ,Pare E*°d- »» '7- where the LXX hasM,„.and Aqmla i„(*„{, ; Isa . xxx.v. ,4, LXX *,„.*«„«,, Aquila 4„W. •

u

306 (JREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [I COR.

well as this, or at least have more deference paid to it than

seems now to be the case. The testimony for the omission of

the Doxology there has recently been endorsed by that of the

Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, published in Studio Simiitiai, vi.

xv., xvi. Zahn points out that we cannot consistently lay

stress on the supposed entire absence of these chapters in

Marcion, unless we are prepared to maintain at the same time

that the other passages which he fails to mention, such as

Gal. iii. 6-9, 15-25, iv. 27-30 ;Romans i. 19-ii. 1, iii. 31-iv. 25,

ix. 1-33, x. 5-xi. 32 ; Coloss. i 15^, 16, were unknown to him,

and only smuggled into the text afterwards by falsifiers on

the Catholic side. Zahn thinks it probable that Marcion

struck out the numerous personal references in chapter xvi.

as being useless and unedifying for the Church of his day.

xv. 23, 24. Zahn holds that the later Antiochean reading

eXevao/Jiut wpbi v^ds (nc L Euthal., etc.) is undoubtedly spurious,

and the yap as certainly genuine (Eiii/eitrtug, i. 267).

xvi. 27. Zahn (Einlcituug, i. 286) is inclined to regard <?> as

the correct reading here for two reasons: (1) because the

incompleteness of the sentence made it liable to correction,

and (2) because the correction is effected in very different

ways. In some manuscripts<J>

is changed into «irr<3 (P, Copt.,

31, 54), in others it is omitted altogether (B F-lat. Syr.),

while in others again ei'»; takes the place of o, 1} (55, 43-scholion).

Subscription: irpos 'Ywnalavs simply, SfABCD; others,

eypui utto KoplvOou oV< $o!/3>)<; tIj? Siokovov, to which some

add rw tv Keyxpeuh e/c(t\i;(r/aj ;others, iypa<j») Sia leprlou

€ire/JL<j>6>) Se Stu •foi'/Si;? (tiro KopivQiwv.

1 Corinthians.

All the manuscripts in which the number of the epistle is

indicated by a word and not by a numeral (<i) call it irpdri],

never irporepa. Origen, however, says iv t\j irporipa irpos

KopivOlovs 6 IlaCXoy (ii. 347)-

i. 2. The words r/yiacrfxivon iv Xpianp '\t](rou are read imme-

I COR.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 307

diately after Oeov by B D* G. This arrangement is adopted

by Weiss, and supported by Zahn as undoubtedly genuine

(Einkitung, i. 210). Heinrici is inclined to regard it as a

transcriptional error which was very apt to occur in copying

stichometric manuscripts. But were there stichometric manu-scripts antecedent to the time of Codex B ?

iii. 22. Marcion seems to have dropped the name of Apollos

here. Indeed, there is no trace in Marcion of any of the

passages where Paul mentions his name. " What was Apollos

to the Church of the second century ? " (Zahn, GK. i. 649.)

v. 2. For eTrevOj'io-are Naber suggests iirevot'io-ttTf. This is

not noticed by Baljon, who is elsewhere careful to mentionthe conjectural emendations proposed by his countrymen.

vi. 20. It was doubtless owing to a transcriptional error that

Marcion read apare between 8o£u<raT€ and tov deov. Buthow it originated, whether from apa Se = apa Si] or by ditto-

graphy, it is hard to say.

x. 9. In place of tov xvpiov we find tov XptarTov read byD G K L, Marcion, Irenaeus (iv. 27, 3), Clement (Eel. Proph.,

49), and the early versions. See above, p. 152, and compareZahn on the reading 'Ii/o-oCf for nvptof in Jude 5 {Einkitung,ii. 88 f).

xiv. 19. For vol mod Marcion read "per legem" 01a tovvo/mov, which was arrived at partly by a transcriptional error

and partly by conscious alteration. This could not haveoccurred, however, unless the original reading was Stu toCvodi fiov, which is still found in a good many manuscripts,and not to> vol' /jlov, the reading preferred by most of oureditors. The latter is perhaps the result of an assimilation tothe construction of yXtoo-trp.

xiv. 31-34. These verses are variously punctuated by recenteditors, the main difference being with regard to the arrange-ment of the clause iy iv irao-ats ruff e(C/cX.;o-/a(f twv aylwv.This clause is referred to verse 31 by Westcott and Hort,who place a comma after irapaKaXwvTm and bracket theintervening words (32, 33a) as a parenthesis. Tischendorf

3o8 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [I COR.

and Weiss place a period after eipt'ivw, and link the d>? clause

to what follows. This arrangement Westcott and Hort

indicate in their margin. For details and reasoning, see the

Commentaries.

xiv. 34, 35. These two verses follow verse 40 in D E F G93, Ambrosiaster, and Sedulius. In Codex Fuldensis, verses

36-40 are found in the macgin after verse 33, where they

were inserted by Victor of Capua (see p. 122), who did not,

however, remove them from their place further down. Hemust therefore have had before him a manuscript exhibiting

this arrangement. We must suppose either that all these

manuscripts are ultimately derived from one and the same

exemplar, in which this arrangement of the verses occurred,

or, as Heinrici suggests, that the original document itself gave

occasion to this variety by having these verses written in its

margin. Our modern editors are unanimous in following the

usual order.

xv. 38. Zahn has shown that in all likelihood the substitu-

tion of irvevfia for the first aw/na was due to certain followers

of Marcion. See his GK. i. 615 ; also Zeitschriftfiir Kirchen-

geschichte, ix. 198 ff.

xv. 47. On Marcion's reading, 6 Seurepos Kuptos e£ ovpavov,

see Zahn, GK. i. 638, who suggests that this may have been

an early gloss that Marcion made use of, seeing that it is in

the highest degree improbable that the heretic and some of

his most violent opponents should alter the original text in

exactly the same way.

xv. 55. Tertullian found ve<Vo? in Marcion, and he therefore

leaves it an open question whether the word signifies victoria

tua or contentio tua (v. 10, p. 306). See Zahn, GK. i. 51.

xvi. 22. On "Maranatha," see Zahn (Einleitung, i. 215 ff.),

who, while admitting that no objection on the ground of

language or grammar can be made to reading the word as

N'ns po = 6 Kvpios qfiwv q\6ev (not epxerai or e\ev<rerai), prefers

with Halevy, Bickell, and Noldeke, to take it as s*n xno=Kvpie tp\ov, which corresponds to the Peshitto rendering of

2 COR.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 309

Apoc. xxii. 20, vw Nno xn (epxov icvpie 'lârov). See note bySchmiedel in the Hand-Commenlar on 1 Cor. xvi. 22, andthe article by Thayer in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible,

sub voce. Luther has " Maharam Motha," but whence hederived this I do not know.

Subscription : eypdupij awo iiXiwirwv (rijs McuceSovtas) Sia

"Zreipava icai Qoprovvarov not 'AxaiVcou (Kovaprov) kcu TtfioOeoV,

al. viro HavXov Kai "LuxrBivovs ; al. awo 'E<j>i<rou t<Js 'Acn'aj.

2 Corinthians.

i. 12. Recent editors adopt the reading ayiornri on the

authority ofst'ABCKMP etc. Zahn, however (Einlei-

tung, i. 243), prefers airXoTtp-i as given by sc D E G etc.

Meyer thinks that airXorirri was substituted for ayio-np-t asbeing the more usual expression. Tischendorf is wrong in

saying: de suo add. syr" " el cum puritate. The Syriac has

sn1

?!*! Nni3'tJ3i Nnvnai stmo'iroa—i.e. lv airXoTtrri <a\ iv

fiXiicpweta l koa in X,lPlTi [tov] Oeou ave<TTpd<ptip.ev ev tw k6u/xu>

xai ovk ev. . . . .

vii. 2. Zahn (GK. i. 650; ii. 515) thinks perhaps the wholesection vii. 2-xi. 1 was omitted by Marcion :

" Let us cleanseourselves from defilement of the flesh and blood .... for I

espoused you as a pure virgin to one husband, (even) Christ"Subscription: ey/jdî; airo $t\tirirwv (+t% UwctSovtat)

+ Sia TtTOU (+ Bappa/9a) itaJ Aovko.

Galatlans.

i. 8. As illustrating how far the sharpest critic may be ledastray by his fondness for conjectural emendation, it may bementioned here that H itzig (Das Buck Hiob, 1874, p. 199),suggested that H AX2 formerly occupied the place of ê(>in this verse, and that this means J) apxiepevt !

1 See I Cor. v. 8, where the Syriac has Kmcnp— i.e. i-v^riTM—for&\i)8t las.

3io GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [GAL.

i. 1 8. For K>i<fiuv, as given in our critical editions, Zahn

(Einleitung, ii. 14) would read llirpov. He accounts for the

remarkable transition from the name Ilerpoy in ii. 7, 8 to

Kiji/>af in ii. 9, u, 14 very well by saying that Paul in the

latter verses is echoing the language used by the Judaizers

from Palestine, just as he does in speaking of the Three as

cnvKoi. Seeing that Paul persistently employs the nameK>/0«9 in 1 Corinthians, a scribe might have introduced this

name, with which he had become familiar, into Galatians i. 18

also, just as 'l<TKupiwr>]<; was carried over from the Synoptics

into most manuscripts of John's Gospel, displacing the title

utto Kapvwrov. The following table will show the distribution

of the Greek manuscripts in support of the readings Kij0«?

and IIeT/509 in Galatians :

—

Gal. i. 18,

ii. 7,

ii. 8,

ii. 9,

ii. 11,

K?7^)a9.

n* A B 17, 67**, 71.

riei-po?.

s'DEFGKLP.omnes.

omnes.

D E F G (A omits).

D E F G K L.

»BCKLP etc.

sABCHP.ii. 14, xA BC10, 17, 67**, 137. DEFGKLP.

It will be observed that in ii. 9 K L P take the side of n (A)B, while in verse II P alone does so, and that D E F G are

the only witnesses that are consistent.

ii. 5- oh ou(5e is omitted by D*, by Tertullian, who ascribes

the negative to Marcion (Adv. Marcionem, v, 3), by certain

manuscripts known to Victorinus Afer, who says " in plurimis

codicibus et latinis et graecis ista sententia est Ad horamccssimus subjectioni" and by the Latin translator of Irena;us

(Adv. Haereses, iii. 13, 3). Ambrosiaster calls attention to

the discrepancy between the Greek and Latin manuscripts

:

" Graeci e contra dicunt Nee ad horam ccssimus;' and similarly

Sedulius. Bengel remarked on the proneness of scribes to

insert or omit a negative: "Omnino apud Latinos lubrica

sub calamo est non particula . . Saepe etiam in graecis

GAL.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 3"

aliisque ovk omissum." See Haussleiter, Forschungen, iv. 3 1 AT,

who says that the subject is one deserving of special treat-

ment. Bengel refers to the exhaustive discussion " de nega-

tionibus quae Pandectis Florentinis recte male additae vel

detractae sunt," but there might be a good deal said on these

theological Sic et Non also.

A single letter or little word more or less, and the sense of

a passage is completely changed. Did Paul say that in his

contention with the Apostles he gave place " for an hour," or

' not for .an hour," oh irpb? wpav, or oU ovSe irpos wpav, or irpos

iopav simply ? In Gal. v 8 is it 17 iraa-novrj €K tov koKovvtos

vp.a<;, or ovk e'/c? In I Cor. v. 6 is it " your glorying is good"or " not good," koXov or ov KaXbvl In Rom. iv. 19, KaTevoqtrev

or 01! KiiTevoti<Tev? In 2 Peter iii. 10, evpeOi'io-erai or ov\

evpeOi'iaerai, or are both these wrong? Compare, for example,

the reading p.aKpav in Matt. viii. 30, where almost all the

Latin witnesses, and Jerome too, read " non longe " ; andJohn vi. 64, where we have o«" fiij TrirrTevovrei, and also 01

wi<rTeiovT€s (« G). In this latter passage the reading ' cre-

dentes " was adopted in the Sixtine edition of the Vulgate,

but " non credentes " in the Clementine ; Wordsworth andWhite decide for the latter against the Sixtine text. In

John vii. 8,sDR etc., read ovk, for which B and the majority

of the witnesses have oviru, but this is manifestly a correction.

In John ix. 27 we have ovk ^Kovo-are, where a solitary Greekmanuscript (22), which, however, has the support of the

Vulgate and half the Old Latin witnesses, reads ijitoiWre:

audistis. In Romans v. 14 we find both tow? fit] afiapTuvovratand tovs afiaprdvoi/Tas. In I Cor. iii. 7 A reads uiare 6 <pvrevwv

e/TTiv ti, omitting the negative ; in ix. 8 we have both ravraXeyei and ravra ov Xe'yei ; while in xiii. 5 B and Clement ofAlexandria actually assert that " love seeketh what is not herown, to nr) eain-ij?"! Again, in I Cor. xv. 5 I the position ofthe negative fluctuates between the first and second memberof the sentence, so that we have Trdi/i-e? p.tv ov and ov irciin-er.

Similarly, in Col. ii. 18 we find « hopaKtv and a nh iopaKev;

3'2 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [GAL.

and in Apoc. iv. il qo-av xai eKTi<rOti<rav and owe 'i<rav *«'

eKTi<rOti<rav—i.e." they were called out of nothingness into

existence."

In Codex D seven cases of this variation occur in Acts

alone—viz. iv. 20, v. 26, 28, vii. 25, xix. 40, xx. 20, 27.

Compare, further, Matt. xii. 32, where in place of afadfacrat

B* reads ovk a<f>e6foerai. In Matt xvii. 25 one Latin manu-

script makes Peter say " utique non " in answer to the ques-

tion, " Doth not your master pay tribute ? " We have in

Matt. xxi. 16, wcoutti and owe axoi'eiv; xxi. 32, ti€T€fie\)')6ijT€

and ov /ieTe/xeXijflijTe ; xxiv. 2, ov /3X«'ir£Te and fiXiirere. In

Mark viii. 14, owe efyo" ana" etxw >x 'n - l 9> *a * °^ ^ °"&' ***

and ovS' ov. Luke xi. 48, o-wcvoWeire : nn awevSoKtiTe ; xxi. 21,

€Kxt»p€iTW(rav : m»j €KX<eptiTU)(rav. John 11. 1 2, ou iroXXay

:

7roXXac ; xv. 1 9, owe eo-re : ij-re ; xx. 8, iiricrrevo-ev : ovk eirto-reutrev.

Acts xxv. 6, irXe/oi/y: ou ttXc/ouc. Rom. iv. 5, fiij epya£opevtp:

epyaôfievm (Studia Sinaitica, vi. p. lxvi); x. 3, ov\ virtrayri<rav :

uireTa'yijcrai/ {ibid.). I Cor i. 19, trw/era* : acrwerbif ; iv. 6,

iva /*>j: 1va\ iv. 19, ou tw \6yoV- rbv \6yov\ vi. 5, ovSttt

<To<j6oc : o-o<f>6t ', vi. 9, ou *cX»?poi'0|U)}<rowri»' : leX^povo/njo-owrn'

(B* 93) and wV» versa in verse 10. 2 Cor. v. I, axci/ooiroiVror

:

ovk axeipoTrotijTOi (non manufactani). Gal. iv. 14, ovk e£ov-

OeinfaaTe: eôvQevâare (x*). Heb. x. 2, ovk w: av: k&v.

2 Pet. i. 12, fif\\t')<Tii) : ovk afnt\fow : ov ptWifati). I John v. 17,

ov irpoy fldfaTov : irpot Oavarov. Apoc. iii. 8, fiixpav : ov

HiKpav.1

ii. 20. Tischendorf fails to mention that Marcion read

ayopuo-avTot (redemit) in place of ayairfoavros. The variant

is of sufficient importance to justify a reference to Zahn, GK.

1 To these examples, gathered quite incidentally, one might add as many bomthe Old Testament and other books if one paid any attention to them in reading.

Take, for example, Herodotus i. 24. Was the votive offering that Arion set up

at Taenarum piya or 06 julya ? In the Germania xv. I did Tacitus say of the

Germans " non multum venationibus, plus per otium transigunt," or " multum

venationibus, etc."? In the new edition of Origen (i. 87, 16) Koetschau reads

bxpfotpa where the manuscript and the earlier editions have xpV'M". and he lets

an ouk stand which others omit, etc.

EPHES.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 3'3

ii. 499. I cannot at this moment recall any instance of a

confusion between ayopavas and ayairyo-as, though it is not

an unlikely mistake to make. In Leviticus xxvii. 19, the

first hand of B by mistake wrote ayopaaas for ayiauras.

v. 9. Epiphanius accused Marcion of having altered fu/uot

to ooXoi". See Zahn, GK. i 639; ii. 503. Cf. above, p. 76.

Epheslans.

Tertullian says (Adv. Marcionem, v. 17) : Ecclesiae quidem

veritate epistulam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non

ad Laodicerios, sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare

gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator. Nihil

autem de titulis interest, cum ad omnes apostolus scripserit,

dum ad quosdam.

iv. 19. For airijXyqito'Tef D here reads a7ri;XTrncoTef. A glance

at AIIHArHKOTEC and AnHAIIIKOTEC will show how

easy it was to make such a mistake in the days of uncial script.

v. 14. The reading irfâvcreit rov Xptarov is attested by

D*, some Latin manuscripts, and Theodore of Mopsuestia.

See above, p. 254.

Subscription : eypa<pi into 'Vip.^ : -l-rSia Tvx'ikov.

Phlllpplans.

L 3. (vxapirrw r xvpup tjuwv by D* E* F G. Zahn

defends the latter in the Zeitschriftfur kirchliche Wissenscliaft,

1885, p. 184, and in his Einleitung, L 376 calls it the " genuine

text" Haupt says (Meyer7, 1897, p. 3): The reading eya>

p.iv fi'xapio-TuJ, which is commonly ignored, is, it appears to

me, rightly recommended by Zahn and Wohlenberg. But

Haupt himself ignores the second half of the reading tw xvplu)

tjfxwv (lor to 6cf> p-ov), which is far more important from a

theological point of view, and is content merely to explain at

length why Paul should thank his God. Weiss, in his Text-

314 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [PHIL.

kritik dcr paulinischen Briefe (pp. 6, 7), mentions eyu>, but says

nothing about piv, or the change from Kvplw ripwv to 6eo> pov.

But you cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

If you accept eyw /ui- evx'tptvTw you cannot reject tw Kvplw

i'ihwv. Haupt, moreover, thinks it is far-fetched to suppose

with Zahn that eyu> pev contains an allusion to something the

Philippians had said. But that is by no means the case, as

we may learn from what Deissmann and Harris tell us of

the epistolary style of those days (see A Study in Letter

Writing, Expositor, September 1898, p. 161 ff.). But if the

Western group preserves the correct text at the very outset

of the epistle, what about it further down ?

i. 7. For x«/hto? Ambrosiaster has " gaudii," so that he

must have read yapa?. J. Weiss proposes to read xpt'ms

(TliLz., 1899, col. 263). X' lP"! anc' Xa /oc' are frequently inter-

changed

—

e.g. in Tobit vii. 18; Sirach xxx. 16. Xo'/ooc is

found for xuP<iV m 1>S - xxix. (xxx.) n. The scribes felt a

difficulty with xPtia nl Kom. xii. 13, and still more so in

Ephes. iv. 29. Ephraem found xpcla nl p'ace °f Xe'P0V

in John v. 14 (see above, p. 293, note 2).

i. 14. Zahn and Haupt omit rov Qeov with D K etc. Sodoes J. Weiss, who takes occasion to make certain important

observations on the attempts hitherto made to restore the

text. See T/iLz., 1899, col. 263.

iii. 14. Till lately Tertullian was our only authority for the

reading " palmam incriminationis " in place of to fipufieiov

T»";y oitti (fX»;<reo)? {De resurrcctionc airnis, 23). It was accord-

ingly supposed that he had read aveyKKijveox; instead of avw

/cXi/o-ew?. We learn now from the Athos manuscript, dis-

covered by von der Goltz, that Origen also cited the reading

«rey(v\»;<r«<? in his commentary as being aveyvwapevov tv tktiv

(itTiyptitfiot?. Even supposing that riva uvrlypaipa turned out

to be no more than a single copy, or even Tertullian's quota-

tion which Origen had become acquainted with in someway, his mention of this reading is in the highest degree

interesting.

I THESS.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 3»5

Subscription: eypdi ciVo 'Viiptjt : + Si 'ETra<ppoStTov. + Sta

TifioOeou not 'Eira<j>po$iTOV.

Colosslans.

ii. 16. On the reading Kipmrw suggested by the rendering

of the Peshitto, and the Latin version of Ephraem's Com-

mentary on the Pauline Epistles, see above, p. 168 f. It was

advocated by Lagarde in his Proplietae Chaldaice, p. Ii. Zahn

rejects it on the ground that it would require irepi ftpaxreuis

in place of ti> fipwo-et, and also that Kptvew agrees better with

KaTctftpadevtiv in verse 18.

ii. 18. On this difficult passage see above, p. 168. Zahn

thinks it quite certain that m is a later insertion even in the

Syriac, seeing that Ephraem knows nothing of it. Of the

various conjectural emendations, he regards that of C. Taylor

as the most probable—viz. aepa KevenfiaTtvwv. This is also

the view of Westcott and Hort. See their Introduction, " Notes

on Select Readings," in loco; Zahn, Einleitung, i. 339.

iv. 14. The words 6 tarpoi 6 ayairrjTOs were omitted by

Marcion. See Zahn, GK. i. 647 ; ii. 528. Two minuscules

omit the words 6 aycnnp-of.

Subscription : eypr'nptj airo Ywpqt Ski Tvxt>cov(+ koi Ti/uodeov)

Kai 'Ovr)<r'ip.ov.

\ Thessalonians.

ii. 7. One can easily see how doubt should arise as to the

correct reading here when we observe the form of the words

in the uncial script, ErENHGHMENNHIIIOI. Moreover,

we must remember that N at the end of a line was very fre-

quently indicated merely by a stroke above the preceding

letter, thus : ErENHOHME. The same alternative readings

are presented in Hebrews v. 13, and in Clement of Alexandria,

i, 140, 7, where Codex F exhibits i'/Vioi, and M, which is the

most important manuscript, has n/moi in the text and >/7rioi in

the margin.

3i6 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [I TIM.

ii. 15. Zahn (GK. ii. 521 ; cf. also i. 644) restores Marcion'stext here in the form twv kqi tov Kvpiov flijo-ow] onroKTiivavrnDvKat Toi/y irpo^Tat avrwv. Marcion founds throughout upon aWestern text, and the fact of his agreement in this instancewith the Antiochean Recension (D

2E

2 K 2 L2)is declared by

Zahn to be a mere coincidence, more especially as the latterhere reads tov? iSlout irpo]Tas. " Had Marcion," he says,"really written iSlovt, Tertullian would have translated thepassage differently, and would scarcely have applied the termadjectio to a qualifying expression inserted before Trpo^rrai."What Tertullian says is, "dicendo et prophetas suos licet suosadjectio sit haeretici." The term tSios is employed so fre-

quently to represent the pronoun when no particular emphasisis intended to be conveyed, that there seems to me no neces-sity for Tertullian translating rois ISlovs vpo^as suos pro-phetas, or rendering the words in any other way than prophetassuos. Compare above, p. 211.

iii. 3. Lachmann here reads p.tjSev aralveadai with Reiskeand Venema. Beza and Bentley suggested era\evtcrOai, Hol-werda avalveorOai, Peerlkamp awtdfadai. Zahn has no hesita-tion in adopting nqgiva <raive<r8ai, which he understands in theoriginal (metaphorical) sense of to flatter, to talk over orcajole. See Einleitung, i. 1 58.

1 Timothy.

i. 4. OiKoSonlav, or oiKoSo/uL^v, which is attested by Irenaeusand a good many Latin witnesses, and received into his textby Erasmus, is nothing but an early transcriptional error for

otKovofilav.

111. 1. "The reading dv6pu>mi>os o Xayot is attested in Greekonly by D* but it was the prevailing reading in the West till

the time of Jerome. When I consider the improbability ofits being invented, and its liability to alteration in conformitywith 1 Tim. i. 15, iv. 9 ; 2 Tim. ii. 1 1 ; Tit iii. 8, 1 am compelled,in spite of the one-sided nature of the testimony, to conclude

I TIM.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 3«7

that it is original. It is a proverbial expression of general

application and profane origin " (Zahn, Einleitung, i. 4S2).

This reading is usually ignored by our editors and commenta-

tors, and yet the passage is one that plays an important part in

the ordination of the clergy, and therefore one on the correct

interpretation of which a good deal might depend. Westcott

and Hort merely mention it in their Notes on Select Readings

and insert it in their Appendix. It is not cited by von Gebhardt

in his edition. For my own part I am not quite convinced of

its originality. At the same time it is hard to understand

how niETOS by any clerical error could be transformed into

ANINOZ, and so become ANePOIIlNOZ.iii. 16. In his Forschungen, vol. iii., Beilage iv. p. 277, "Zum

Text von 1 Tim. iii. 16," Zahn published two or three lines

from some parchment fragments in the Egyptian Museum of

the Louvre, which, he thinks, belong to the IV-VI century.

The last three lines run—ei/cre/Setac pxxnup • • •| u> e<t>avepti>Bij

e ....Ikm tS ... . He says, " The w in the second last

line is undoubtedly meant for o. This adds another to the

Greek witnesses supporting this reading, which has till nowbeen attested only by the Latin manuscripts, by other am-biguous or doubtful witnesses, and probably by the first Greekhand of Codex Claromontanus. The km in the last line is, so

far as I am aware, supported by no other evidence." Thereading 6eos, which was formerly so much discussed, seems to

be simply an early transcriptional error, OC being read as

9C

—

i.e. 6eoi with the usual mark of abbreviation. The old

dispute over the reading of the earliest manuscripts (most ofthem exhibit a correction at the place), whether the middlestroke of the in the oldest codices A C is by the first orsecond hand, or whether in the case of A it may not be simplythe tongue of an E shining through from the other side of theparchment, cannot seemingly be decided now in the presentstate of the manuscripts.1 Codex A was examined by

1 In his Lucian Lagarde gives examples of his being deceived by certainletters shining through from the opposite side—e.g. Esther v. 22 and 27. This

3i8 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [2 TIM.

Scrivener both with and without the aid of a magnifyingglass perhaps twenty times in as many years. Dean Burgondevotes seventy-seven pages of his Revision Revised to a dis-cussion of the reading. The facility with which a variant ofthis sort may arise is shown by the perfectly analogous pas-sage, Joshua ii. 1 1. Here B and F read Kvplos o &o? vpw OCev ovpavw avu>, while on the other hand A in place of OC hasOC, which in this instance is correct In 1 Tim. iii. 16 theother witnesses—viz. the versions and the Fathers—throwtheir weight into the opposite scale.

iv. 3. Isidore asks whether kwXvovtwv .... awexea-OaiPpwp.a'Twv may not be a atpdXpa of the scribes for avTeXe(r6at,to which Oecumenius replies that it is no afriXpa KaXXiypa <piK6vbut good Attic Greek for Ku\iet» dirb rit fipwaecos. The ex-planation of Theophylact, however, is nearer the mark, thata-vpfiovXeveiv is to be supplied from KwXueiv. Bentley,Toup, Bakhuyzen, and Bois would supply «Aei»Vr<w beforea7r«r'Xea-0ai, while Hort suggests the substitution of J, awTtaBaior Ka \ yeue<r6ai in place of awexeaOai. There seems to be noneed of such expedients.

Subscription: eyp^r, airb AaorWac-H/T.c earw p-nrpdiroXtt

Gpvylat t?? KawaTiivn (IIa«maw,y) : al. airb NikottoW : al.airo 'AQrjvwv: al. airb ' Poypr^+ 81a Titov.

2 Timothy.

iv. 19. After 'AKv\av two minuscules (46 and 109) insertAiKTpwT'w ywaha avTov KU \ Zipalav^npatav 109) Ka \ Zjvwvaroue vlovs avroO. The interpolation is derived from the ActaPauli, and is to be connected not with Aquila, but with the" house of Onesiphorus." See Zahn, Einleitung, i. 4 1 1

.

Subscription: iypdfr avo Aao<Waf : al. dirb TriW+ SVe€K Sevrepov irapicrTr, llaOXot tu> Kalaapi Nepwvt.

IT' I", 1TIin 'eres 'ing «* The following verse begins with „, and Lagardethought that the firet scribe had added another„ by mistake and afterwardslsed

it whereas .1 turned out that what he took to be MH was nothing else than HNshining through from the other side.

HEB.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 319

Titus.

i. 9, 1 1. Considerable additions are made to the text after

both these verses by Codex 109. This manuscript is num-

bered 1 1 in the Library of St. Mark at Venice, and described

by Gregory as " haud malae notae." It contains both a

Latin and an Arabic version, and dates from the thirteenth or

fourteenth, or, as some suppose, the eleventh, century. After

verse 9 we read : py \eiporoveiv Siyapovs fiySe Sta/covou? avrovs

Troteiv, ptjSi yuvaiKas tx€lv ** Styaplai' ptjSe TrpoaepxecrOuxrav ev

tw dvaiacrrnpitp XeiTOvpyclv to QeloV root apxovras toit aSiico-

xpiras Kat dpirayas Kai iffevtrras Kai aveXajpovat e\eyx£ *% ôv

Sidicovof. After verse II we find to tckvo tous iSlovt yoveis

vfiplfavrat 5 TvirTovra? iirtoTOfitê Kai IXryê Kai vovdtTtt ajy

jrarip TSKVa.

Subscription: irpbf Titov (+t!j? KptjTwv «c/cAijo7ay irpwrov

eiricrKOTrov xtipoTovtiQevra) eypa<pt) airo HiicoiroXeuK Trjs Mcuce-

Sovlat (missa per Arteman : al. per Zenam et Apollo).

Hebrews.

i 3. Instead of <f>epwv, the first hand of B wrote <pavepwv,

which a second hand altered to <f>epwv, while a third restored

<pavepwv, and wrote in the margin apaOearaTe Kai koks, a<pes

tov [? to] iraXaiov, p.!) perairoiti. A great deal of material

might be collected from the margin of old manuscripts, not

only for the history of Prayer, as von Dobschiitz recently

observed, but for other interesting departments of the history

of civilisation.

ii. 9. The reading x">pii Qeov instead of x,*PlTt êo^ ls nowfound only in M and in the second hand of 67. Origen,

however, was aware of the various reading : x^P'S 8eov t) oVep

ev Titri avTiypa<f>oii x<*piTi deov. It seems to be a primitive

transcriptional error.

x. 34. We have here to choose between Seo-pois and Staploif.

The latter is manifestly the correct reading. It is attested

320 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CATH.

by A D* and certain minuscules, among which are 37**, 67**.

This last is a Vienna manuscript (Vindob. gr. theol. 302),whose marginal readings exhibit a text closely resemblingthat of the uncials B M, which are defective in Hebrews x.

Aeo-,uo(? non is supported by x D' H K L I', Clem. Alex.,

Origen (i. 41, where, however, /tov is omitted by M* P,

according to Koetschau's new edition), and by d e (vinatlis

comvi). Zahii (Einleitung, ii. 122) thinks that the connectionof the reading Sear/mots nou with the tradition of the Paulineauthorship of the epistle is suspicious. We find the readingadopted in those regions where the tradition was accepted.It may, however, have been the means of confirming andspreading the tradition, seeing that Clement of Alexandria is

actually aware of it. Pseudo-Euthalius, e.g., employs thereading in support of the Pauline authorship (Zacagni 670).

In this same verse x A H have preserved the properreading tuin-mV 'Eavroh, as given by D E K L, is a would-be correction.

xi. 23. In certain manuscripts (D and three Vulgatecodices) an entire verse is insertedafterver.se 23: lllrrru neyusyevo/Aei'ot; Mmuo-i;? utei\ci> t<w AlyvwTtov kuthvow rrjv Tairelvwcriv

tct .io<t/V/><T<k avrov. Its position shows it to be an interpolation.

xiii. 9. The present tense TrepnraTovvTes is exhibited onlyby n* A D*, all the other witnesses having TrcpnruTi'ia-avres.

The minority are in the right here. A correction is not alwaysan improvement.

xiii. 1 8. Zahn accepts the km before irtp\ fa™. It is foundonly in D d and Chrysostom. This combination of witnessesis very rare.

Subscription : eyptlfn (+ i^pniari 31) utto rfc 'I-rnXiay Sta

TtfXodtOU: III. (ITTO Aftip/KV'. III. (ITTO ' Vw/Mft.

Catholic Epistles.

The variety in the order of the Catholic Epistles is evenmore significant than that of the Pauline. When the Syrian

El'IST.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 321

Church of Edessa obtained the New Testament, it consisted

only of the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, and the Acts. It

contained neither the Apocalypse nor the Catholic Epistles.

This is proved among other things by the fact that not a

single quotation from these writings is found in the Homilies

of Aphraates, the date of which falls between 336 and 345.

At a later date the Syrian Church accepted the Epistle of

James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, but the four so-called Anti-

legomena—viz. 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude—are to this

day excluded from their Canon of the New Testament.

Even in the West, James was not reckoned among the books

of the New Testament previous to the fourth century. Thereis no mention made of it in Africa about the year 300,

although it was cited at Rome and Carthage at an earlier

date. At Alexandria, however, all the seven Catholic

Epistles were counted in the New Testament as early

as the time of Clement, 1 and their place in the Canonbecomes more and more firmly assured from the time of

Eusebius onwards.'- At the same time, the order of their

arrangement varies very considerably. Indeed, every possible

variety occurs, except that Jude seems never to have beenplaced first, nor 2 Peter last. Thus we find James, 2 Peter,

3 John, Jude; James, Jude, 2 Peter, 3 John; 2 Peter, James,Jude, 3 John ; 2 Peter, 3 John, James, Jude; 2 Peter, 3 John,Jude, James, etc. 3

It follows that in the case of this group of

New Testament writings, as well as in that of the preceding,

it is necessary and possible to distinguish the three longerfrom the four shorter epistles in tracing the history of thetext. And we see at the same time what justification Lutherhad in drawing a line between these epistles and the principalbooks of the New Testament as having been held in quite adifferent estimation in early times.

1Cf. Westell, Canon, 1'arl II. ch. ii. § 1, p. 354 ff. ; Bible in the Church

p. 125 f-

' Cf. Wcstcott, Bible in the Church, p. 153 ff.

' Sue Article on The Catholic Epistles, by SalmonJ, in Hastings' Dictionary ofthe Bible, i. p. yy) f.

s J

322 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [l PETER.

1 Peter.

iii. 22. After Qeov the Vulgate inserts dcgluticns mortem ut

vitae aetemae haercdcs efficeremur, " apparently from a Greek

original which had the aorist participle kutuwiwv ; cf. I Cor.

xv. 54" (W-H, Notes, in loco). See Vetter, Der dritte

Korintherbrief.

2 Peter.

i. i. Zahn considers ev StKaioo-vvg the original reading, and

els 8iKato(rvvr)v a later correction due to taking ttIo-tiv ev Sik-

(lioa-vvi) together as " faith in righteousness." The last two

words are to be taken with \axovaiv. Einlcituitg, ii. 59.

i. 2. Zahn agrees with Lachmann and Spitta in holding

that ev ewtyvwaei tov Kuplov >)nu>v is the correct text here—that

is to say, he omits tov Oeou koi 'Iijo-oi". Tischendorf's Appara-

tus is very diffuse on this verse, and Baljon's note, which is

extracted from it, is accordingly not quite satisfactory. 1 Like

all the other editors, he gives ev eiriyvwo-ei tov Qeov kui

'Irjerov tov Kvplov fowv in the text, but the only variants he

mentions are the insertion of Xpio-rov after 'I>;crot7, and the

omission of ijfiwv. There is no notice of the omission of the

words tov Qeov koi 'Itjcrov by any of the witnesses. They

are not found in P, the best manuscripts of the Vulgate (am

fu dem harl), Philoxenian and Harklean Syriac, nor in

minuscules 69, 137, 163. These last, however, the Syriac and

the minuscules with m, insert 'Itjcrov Xpio-Tov after fawv.

Kiihl believes that the shorter form is probably due to the

fact that in the epistle Christ is everywhere regarded as the

object of eirlyvaxTts. But this is really very improbable. For

the scribe could not have been aware of this when he began

1 It is certainly difficult to construct an Apparatus which shall lie concise and

yet clear. In Jude 22 Baljon adopts iXiart in the text, and yet he leaves the

apparatus arranged in such a way as to suggest that he intended to read i\4yx*rt

with Tischendorf.

2 PETER.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 3 2 3

to write the epistle, so that he must have turned back and

deleted the words Kat Qeov kol\ 'lyo-oS afterwards. At the

same time it is a fundamental principle of textual criticism

that the lectio brevior is to be preferred. Reference may be

made to the Epilogus of Wordsworth and White, ch. vi., De

regnlis a nobis in textu constituendo adhibitis, where the very

title of section 4 implies this principle :" Cum brevior lectio

probabilior sit, codices A F H* M Y plerumque praeferendi

sunt," and where the most conspicuous examples of this rule

are said to be " Additamenta nominum propriorum, et prae-

cipue sanctorum

—

e.g. Jesus, Christus, Dominus, Deus." It is

true that in the passage before us we have not simply a case

of the insertion of a word or words understood ; at the same

time, here if anywhere the text is more likely to have been

extended than abbreviated. It remains to be seen whether

P exhibits a good text in other passages of the Catholic

Epistles as well as this, but so far as the minuscules 69 and

137 are concerned, they justly bear a good reputation. Hort

calls 69 one of the better cursives, and 137 has a text so

closely resembling that of Codices D E as to be of material

assistance when these are defective. The minuscules are too

often regarded as mere ciphers ; as if a cipher more or less

behind a number did not make a vast difference. In the very

next verse we find 137 supporting k A in reading to. iravTa,

which is accepted by Tischendorf and Weiss, and preferred

also by Kiihl. In this instance it contradicts P, which omits

tu with B C K L.

i 1 2. Here fteWt'jo-w is given by n A B C P, ov fieWi/aw by

8 f tol (non differam), and owe a/xcXi/o-o) by K L etc. (" the

Antiochean recension and the Syriac versions," Zahn).

" Me\\>;eno, with the present infinitive, can hardly be simply

a periphrastic future. The idea is rather that the writer will

be prepared in the future, as well as in the past and in the

present, to remind them of the truths they know, whenever

the necessity arises. As they had no evidence of the fulfil-

ment of this promise, the copyists and translators found a

324 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [2 PETER.

difficulty with this expression, and hence the variants." Zahn,Einlcitung, ii. 53 f.

i, 15. The reading <rirov8<ifa, found in s* 31, and the

Armenian, is also attested by the Philoxenian Syriac, a fact

which Zahn regards as important. "On transcriptional

grounds the reading (tttouSutw, preferred by our editors,

would appear to be confirmed by the reading airov&utraTt,

exhibited by the Harklean Syriac and a few minuscules.Hut in reality both these latter readings merely serve to showthat a difficulty was felt again in admitting a promise on thepart of Peter which he seemed never to have fulfilled." Ein-lcitung, ii. 54. Compare on /xeWyaw above.

i 21. It is probable that Theophilus of Antioch (AdAutolycum, ii. 9) read (01) dywi (toO) deod wdpu-rrot, the formexhibited by « and A (" the chief representatives of the

Antiochean family"), and also by several Latin witnesses.

See Zahn, GK. i 313 ; Chase on 2 Peter in Hastings'Dictionary of the llible, vol. iii. p. Sol.

ii. 13. On this passage Zahn remarks (Einlcitung, ii. 53):" The similarity of 2 Peter to the Epistle of Jude was doubt-less a source of textual corruption. But it may also aid usin correcting the text. Because, whichever of the two weregard as the original, in any case the one is our earliest

witness to the text of the other. If we accept the reading<<y<<7ru(? in Jude 12, it follows either (1) that Jude readaya-B-rtiy in 2 Peter, and that this is the original reading there,

or (2) that Peter, supposing he wrote second, altered Jude's<<y«7n«y to uttut<us, which it is hard to conceive, the formerbeing so unmistakable, and the latter much less suitable to thecontext. In either case, therefore, t\y,'tiruit would seem to bethe correct reading in 2 Peter ii. 13." No doubt the alteration

of uynTTdis to ('ittutuis is " hard to conceive," but it is notinconceivable. As illustrating how a piece of writing maybe misread, it is sufficient to point to Justin's mistake withregard to " Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio." 1 As regards the par-

Thc inscription on a column at Umnc dedicated lo a Saliine goil which Justin

2 PETER.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 325

ticular words before us, I may be allowed to cite my Philo-

logica Sacra, p. 47, where I have referred to the frequent

confusion of ayairaw and a-n-aruw, ayaict] and airuTtj in manu-

scripts of the Old Testament. In Ps. lxxviii. 36, for example,

out of more than one hundred manuscripts that have been

collated, not one has preserved the correct reading n-Kwrnaav;

all have ijytnr>i<rav. In 2 Chron. xviii. 2 again only one has

the correct text >}iritTa. From a psychological point of view,

therefore, it would seem more natural to suppose that cnri'truis

is the original reading in the passage under consideration,

and ayuirai? the transcriptional error. The authorities for

each are distributed as follows :

—

«ya7raif. a7r«Tujc.

fA'Bm vg, Syr"" 11

. xA'CKLP....2 Peter 11. 13,

^ Syrhork - mK, Sahid. Syr"nr\ Copt., Arm.

fsBKL vg, Sahid., Copt.,Jude 12,

J Syr"" 1', Syr 1- \ Arm.

A ^ 44. 5&.

In the first edition of this work I said it was strange, con-

sidering the frequent confusion of uyuiri; and uirurti, that

Tischendorf goes by the majority of his witnesses in the case

of 2 Peter ii. 13 (Westcott and Hort in their text, Weiss,

Weymouth, and Baljon all do the same), " whereas the same

word should be read in both cases, and that uy«Tui?. Other-

wise it would be necessary to suppose that the text was

already corrupt when the one writer used the epistle of the

other, no matter whether Peter or Jude : quod variat, verum

esse non potest." I cannot understand an argument like that

of Kiihl (Meyer8, on 2 Peter ii. 13, p. 428): " a-Karats is pre-

sumably original in one of the passages, most likely in

2 Peter, as «yu7r«ic goes better with vfxwv in Jude 12 than

with uvtwv here. B has ayuTracj in both places, and C in the

same way uttutuh!, which is explainable on the supposition

read as " Simoni Sancto Deo," and understood as referring to Simon Magus.

See Kurtz, Church Hillary (Macphcrson), i. p. 97 ; Neander, Chunk Jluloiy

(Bohn), ii. p. 1 23, note.

326 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [2 PETER.

that originally the one word stood in the one passage and the

other in the other. Nearly all recent expositors favour the

reading airuTaiy in 2 Peter." I am glad now to have the power-

ful support of Zahn in my dissent from that view. Reference

may be made to the excellent article on Jude by F. H. Chase

in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, ii. 799-805. His first

paragraph is on the "Transmission of the Text," and the

article is a model of what such things should be.1 On the

Philoxenian Syriac see the work of Merx mentioned above,

p. 106 (5). On the rest of the verse, see Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 7 1.

He points out that Tischendorf's apparatus is misleading here,

as it fails to notice the omission of vp.iv by the Philoxenian

Syriac, the Sahidic version, the Speculum of Pseudo-Augus-

tine (m), and by Pseudo-Cyprian. In his opinion it is an

interpolation due to the crw— of arwevwxovfievoi. These pro-

nouns are very liable to be interpolated, as is pointed out byWordsworth and White in their Epilogus, p. 729, where

these " additamenta " come next after " Proper Names" ; see

above, p. 238.

ii. 15. On Botrop, seep. 243 f.

ii. 22(5. In Hippolytus, Re/utatio, ix. 7, we find : fier ov

iroXv Se eiri tov avrov f36p/3opov aveKuXtovro. On the con-

nection of this with 2 Peter ii. 22, see Zahn, GK. i. 316.

Wendland tried to make out that it is a saying of Heraclitus.

Compare also Clement, Ao'yoj HpoT/oeTrruco'r, x. 96 : v^ yap,

<puatv, ijSovTai fiopfidpw fiaWoi/ t] KaQaptp vSari, kcu eir! <popirrui

finpyawovatv kotu. AijfioKpiTov.

iii. 6. The conjectural reading Si ov for Si' £>v Schmiedelthinks well worth}' of consideration. See his Winer, § 19.

iii. 10. None of the variants here appears to be the correct

reading (Kara/cmio-erai in various forms : arpavta-O^a-ovrai : evpe-

6>'l<reTai). What is required is a passive form of pew, or one of

its compounds (? Siappv>'i<reTai).

iii. 16. The article is inserted before ewta-roXait by x andK L P (" the Antiochean recension "), but omitted by A B C.

1 Compare also the articles on 1 and 2 Peter by the same writer in vol. iii.

I JOHN.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 327

Zahn, who would omit it, points out that «- Tra'o-aiy rah eiricr-

ToKaii would imply a complete collection of Paul's Epistles,

and would include all the constituents without exception,

whereas without the article the phrase contrasts one epistle

known to the readers with those of all kinds that he had

written. See Einleitung, ii. 108. Tischendorf admitted the

reading now favoured by critics in his seventh edition, but

rejected it in the eighth. This same thing occurs not

infrequently. See the article on 2 Peter by Chase in

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iii. p. 810.

1 John.

iv. 3. Von der Goltz has shown conclusively what was long

a matter of conjecture, that Origen not only knew the reading

o \vei tov 'lycrouv, but seemingly preferred it ; and that Clement

also cites the text in this form in his work on the Passover,

which is all but entirely lost. He has also established anew

the reliable nature of the Latin version of Irenseus in the

matter of Biblical quotations. See Zahn in the T/iLbl., 1899,

col. 180 ;Einleitung, ii. 574.

v. 7. The " comma Johanneum " needs no further discussion

in an Introduction to the Greek Testament, but its history on

Latin soil is all the more interesting. The fact that it is still

defended even from the Protestant side is interesting only

from a pathological point of view. On the decision of the

Holy Office, confirmed by the Pope on the 15th January 1897,

see Hetzenauer's edition of the New Testament, and the notice

of it by Dobschiitz in the ThLz., 1899, No. 10. On the litera-

ture, compare also Rolling (Breslau, 1893) ! W. Orme's Memoir

of the Controversy respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses,

1 John v. 7 (London, 1830), New Edition, with Notes and

Appendix by Ezra Abbot (New York, 1866); C. Forster, ANew Plea for tlu Aut/ienticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly

Witnesses (Cambridge, 1867); H. T. Armfield, The Three

Witnesses : The disputed Text in St. John (London, 1893).

328 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [JAMES.

James.

An Arabic scholion, attributed to Hippolytus, cites this

epistle under the name of Jude. See Zahn, GK. i. 320, 2;

323, 3. In two minuscules cited by Tischendorf, 'laKtifiovis followed by rod aSehfoG Qeov or aSe\<f>o6eod, and in one ofthe subscriptions by rod aSe\<j>oQeov. The subscription in ff

reads " explicit epistola Jacobi filii Zaebedei (sic)." See Zahn'sEinleitung, i. 75.

ii. 2. a-waywyriv appears without the article in »* B C andone of Scrivener's minuscules. This reading is accepted byZahn, who sees in it an indication that those to whom theepistle is addressed were in possession of several synagogues,that is supposing the word to mean meeting-place, and notsimply assembly, as he himself is inclined to believe. SeeEinleitung, i. 60, 66.

Jude.

5. This verse exhibits an uncommonly large number ofvariants. Thus e!S6rat occurs with or without ifias after it

;

for Travra we find both TraVray and toOto ; while the positionof diraf varies, the word being found before irivra, on, andAaw. But even that is not all. Most recent editors read SnKvpwt, but we find also 6V1 'Vow : on 6 fleor : and Sn 6 Kvpiot(textus receptus). Tischendorf's apparatus might lead one tosuppose that the witnesses for 'Vow and 6 0e6i omit 5n alto-gether, but that is not so. The ambiguity is due to the looseway in which the note is given. Westcott and Hort think it

probable thjrt the original text wasJ3TI0, and that this wasread as OTIIC, and perhaps as OTIKC. Kiihl thinks that theeasiest explanation of the variants is to suppose that Kvpiotwas the original reading, and that 'Vow and 8e6s were derivedfrom it. But it seems to me that Zahn has better reason onhis side when he argues for Sn 'Vow as the original reading.

APOC] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 329

He first of all eliminates 6 debt as having no great attestation,

and as being found alongside of xvptos in Clement (domtnus

deus). The choice, therefore, lies between Kupios and 'Vo5j.

The latter has by far the stronger external attestation, it is

the lectio ardua, and is, on internal grounds, also to be pre-

ferred. See Einleitung, ii. 88.

22, 23. Zahn has a strong impression that this passage lies

at the foundation of Didache, ii. 7 : ov (uo-foeis iravra avQpwirov,

dWa ov? /xiv kXeyfait, irepl Si &v irpo<rev£n, ovt Se ayairt}<reis

virip tw ^vx>'iv o~ov. If this is really so, we have here a piece

of very early testimony, not certainly to the actual words, but

to the thought conveyed. See Einleitung, ii. 86.

Subscription : At the end of the Armenian Bible of 1698

we find a note to the effect that " this epistle was written in

the year 64 by Judas Jacobi, who is also called Lebbaeus and

Thaddaeus, and who preached the Gospel to the Armenians

and the Persians."

Apocalypse.

Apart from particular passages, the last book of the Bible

cannot be unreservedly recommended to the devout laity for

special study, but it is peculiarly well adapted as an introduc-

tion to the method of textual criticism, and that for two

reasons. First of all, because the number of available wit-

nesses to the text is comparatively small, and, secondly,

because these are more easily grouped here than in the other

divisions of the New Testament. Reference may be made in

this connection to the first part of Bousset's critical studies on

the text of the Apocalypse, where the distinction drawn by

Bengel between the Andreas and Arethas groups of manu-scripts is correctly emphasized. At the same time Bousset

himself comes to the rather unsatisfactory conclusion that an

eclectic mode of procedure is all that is possible at present.

An attempt has been made above (p. 1 57) with the conclusion

of the Apocalypse. We shall now try a few further examples.

330 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [Aroc.

In order to ascertain the relationship of the manuscripts we

must select passages that exhibit a considerable divergence of

meaning with a small variation of form. Such a passage

occurs in the last chapter. In Apoc. xxii. 14, after the

words "blessed are they,' we read, in the one class of wit-

nesses, " that wash their robes,'' in the other, " that do his

commandments." That is to say, we have in the one case

OIIIAYNONTeCTACCTOAACAYTON and in the other

01ll010YNTeCTAC6T0AACAYT0Y. The difference is

exceedingly small, especially when we consider that in early

times 01 was frequently written Y, and GN at the end of

a line H. I haye no doubt that "wash their robes" is the

original reading here and that "do his commandments" is the

later alteration, though, of course, others will hold the oppo-

site view. For the former we have the authority of s A, for

the latter that of Q (i.e., B"i"r; see above, p. 80) with its

associates. The question now becomes: Are there any

passages where x and A part company, and which are decisive

in favour of x? It is impossible to say offhand whether N or

A has preserved the correct text, s contains corrections that

A does not, and vice versa. Take another example.

The author of the Apocalypse follows the Hebrew idiom,

according to which the word or phrase in apposition to an

oblique case is put in the nominative. 1 Thus we have

:

ii. 20. Trfli ywu'iKit 'Ief«j8e\ 1; \eyovtra- Q makes this >/ Ac'yei,

and the corrector of s Tin' Xeyova-av. Similarly, iii. 12, r/j?

KKii'j;; l(povcT(t\S]/m 1} KaTa{$<uvov<T<t, where again Q has i; Kara-

/3<«Ya, and n' rijc Kiira^uivavain. Hut it is not only the later

corrector of s that does this: the first scribe of that manu-

script does it himself. For example :

xiv. 12. n has toi' T>}pw'ivTtev instead of oi riipowres; in

verse 14 i'xot/Ta instead of k'xwv ; in xx. 2, tw o<pw instead of

1 See I) I ass, Grammar of N. T. Greek, § 31, 6, Eng. Tr., p. 80 f. Compare the

similar German idiom used in the titles of books, "von X. Y. ordcntlicher Professor."

How naturally this comes to a Hebrew is shown by the fact that Sal. bar, in his trans-

lation of the Massorctic note at the end of the books of Samuel (Leipzig, Tauchnitz,

1S92, p. 158), anmng other lovely things has " ad mortem Davidis rex Israelis."

APOC.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 33'

o 5>r, etc. In other places A, in this last A alone, it appears,

has preserved the correct text.

There are other places, again, where the correct reading is

preserved, perhaps, only in a later manuscript, or in none at

all. We may compare with the idiom in the Apocalypse

what we find at the beginning of the book in the passage

about the seven spirits before the throne of God.

i 4. r'nro twv tTTTu Trvcvut'iTUiv .... evwiriov rod Opovov

ain-ot". In the space indicated by the dots Erasmus has a ecrriv,

Codex 36 has u eiW, Q and C have Ii, which is adopted by

Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort, X and A have ru>v, which

is adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles, and by Westcott and

Hort in their margin, while Codex 80 has nothing at all. All

these variants are explainable on the supposition that the

original reading was ru. Exception being taken to this con-

struction, one copyist made it tS>v, the other u, the third

supplied the copula, and the fourth dropped the offending

word altogether. Similarly, in chap. v. 13, x alone has pre-

served the correct reading to, for which the others have o or

!> eo-Tii'. Another case is ii. 13, where the writer wished to

say, " in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was

slain.' According to the idiom mentioned above, while 'Ai/TtVa

was in the genitive, » fxdprut would be in the nominative of

apposition. But owing to the influence of this nominative,

A.i>Ttwa was made nominative so as to agree with it, and the

sentence then ran, ev rah tjixipai^ 'ArriVay o fiapTVs fxou ....

oc . . . . which could not be construed. The consequence

was corrections of all sorts. The boldest expedient was

simply to drop the of, but other means were adopted to

relieve the construction. After i)nepui<; some inserted aiy or iv

ah, Erasmus read i/xah, x has tV rati, and some Latin witnesses

Mis. But read 'AiTiVu in the genitive and all is in order. 1

1 In this (independent) suggestion I am glad to find myself in agreement with

Lachmann (Sludien und Kriliken, 1830, p. 839), and Westcott and Hort(ii., App.,

137). I see that lialjon and Zahn too follow if. Hut Housset still writes Jinipats

aU.

332 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [AI'OC.

The Apocalypse presents quite a number of passages en-abling us to distinguish the manuscripts. There is very little

difference in form between Xitrnvri and Xoivuvn (i. 5), aerodand ayyi\ l)V (viii. 13), \IQ0V and Xlnw (xv. 6), but it makes agreat difference whether we read "who redeemed us" or" who washed us," an •' eagle flying " or " an angel flying,""wearing pure linen " or " wearing pure stone." These varia-tions are the result of accidental errors in transcription. Butwe meet an instance of intentional alteration in xiii. 18, wherethe number of the beast is variously given as 666 and 616.

Grouping the witnesses for the former variants we have—

1 5- Xveravn, x A C, Syriac, 1 Armenian.Xoua-uvri, O I', Vulgate, Coptic, Ethiopia

viii. 13. «€T«i7, ,v A Q, Vulgate, Syriac, 1 Coptic.

Ethiopia

nyyeXou, P, Armenian.The two readings are combined not only by certain com-

mentators, but in some manuscripts, UyyiXiw ^ ,'(tT0|-

xv. 6. XlQov KaOapdv, A C, am fu demid tol.

Xlvov KuOapov, P, Syriac, 1 Armenian, Clementine-

Vulgate.

Xii'om/ KuOupoi' is read by O, and Ktiftiini,i>i Xivowby «.

Trcgelles and Westcott alone accept the reading \!0oi> ; all

the other editors regard it as an early transcriptional error.Holtzmann refers to the parallel passages i. 13, iv. 4, vii. 9, 13,xvii. 4, xviii. 16, xix. 8, 14, in support of XW, but they pointrather the other way. For " fine linen " Apocalypse has/3iWii'(if five times, but never once Xlvos, which means onlythe material, and not the garment made of it. Moreover, wefind a parallel in the Old Testament, though in another con-nection, in Ezekiel xxviii. 13, where we' read ™t« XlBovXP'io-tov e'wSecWiii, so that X/fW here must not be so confi-dently rejected. A<'(W was more liable to be changed to

Including Gwynn's Syriac numncripl : see nliuu', p, 102.

AI'OC.l CRITICAL NOTES ON VAUIOUS PASSAGES. 333

Xlrov than vice versa, as the Vulgate shows, in which the

authorised printed edition has linteo where the manuscripts

read lapidcm. At the same time one cannot but admit that

primitive transcriptional errors do occur. The reading uyyeXouin viii. 13, to which certain manuscripts prefix evos, seems

to me to be corroborated by dXXov "tyyeXov -Keropuvov in

xiv. 6. Or are we to read <'(eT<>V there in the face of all

the witnesses ?

v. 1. The correct text here is that adopted by Zahn

:

yeypu/x/xtiov i'crwOev ku) "nria-Oev KUT€(T<j>payiafxivov. Grotius,

though mistaken as to the true text, was the first to give the

right interpretation of the words by taking eo-w (eatoOev) with

yeypiiixnivov, and egaodev (o7r«xr)ei>) with KiiTea-cppayitrfjievoi:

" Locus sic distinguendus yeypap.ftivov evw, K(u egi»6ev KUTea-

ff>puyitrfi.tvov." This combination of the words (" haec novadistinctio") was combated for the reason among others that

it deprived them of all their force and rendered them super-

fluous, for who ever saw a roll that was written on the outsideand sealed on the inside. See Pole's Synopsis, where it is said

of Grotius, "tarn infelix interpres Apocalypseos est magnusille Hugo in rebus minusculis." Zahn (Einleitiing, ii. 596)improves the text of Grotius, but retains his connection of thewords. He holds that eat.iOev and oiriadev are not correlative

terms, and that the idea of a papyrus roll written on bothsides (o-ia-ftoyparpov) must be abandoned ; compare above,

p. 43, 11. 2. The book was, in fact, not a roll but a codex. Twothings point to this. There is, first, the fact that is said to bee-\ ti> 6e£tuv. Had it been a roll it would have been ei> rfioej-ifi. Moreover, the word used for opening the book is

I'tva'igui, and not, as in the case of rolls, uveXlacruv, uveiXeiv, or(«'(i-TiW«c. That it was not written on the outside is alsoshown by the fact that it was sealed with seven seals, thepurpose of which was to make the reading of the book im-possible. Not till the seventh seal is broken is the book openand its contents^ displayed. This /3,/3\<W is quite differentfrom the fttftXuplSiov mentioned in chapter x. 2, 9. See also

334 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [AFOC.

E. Huschke, Das Buck mil 7 Siegeln (i86o),to which Zahnrefers (lib. cit. 597).

ix. 17. For vaKivdivous Primasius has spineas ( = «kui'0/Vouy),

a reading which neither Bousset nor Baljon, strange to say,

think worth recording. Bousset rightly observes that in the

following verse trvp corresponds to iruptuo?, and Oeiov to fciwow,so that Kairvos lets us see what the writer understood as the

colour of hyacinth—viz. the colour of smoke. But the ideas

of " thorns " (spineae) and " smoke " are even more closely

related.

xiii. i3. Irenreus found 616 given as the number of the

beast in some manuscripts, which he could only explain as a

transcriptional error: "hoc autem arbitror scriptorum pec-

catum fuisse ut solet fieri quoniam et per literas numeriponuntur, facile literam Graecam quae sexaginta enuntiat

numerum in iota Graecorum literam expansam." In reality,

however, the change from £ to t would be a contraction rather

than an expansion, and the alteration would seem to beintentional, seeing that 666 in Hebrew characters gives the

Greek form Neron Kesar, and 616 the Latin Nero Kesar.Irenajus himself, however, appeals to the fact that the number666 was found ev irucri rati mrouSulois /ca! upxulots ai'Tiypi'itputf,

IXUpTVpOVVTUIV UVTWV CKUVWV TIOV (CUT o\]riv tqv'\oi('wvy}v eWpttKOTWV(v. 30, 1-3). The opening words in the Latin translation

run, " in omnibus antiquis et probatissimis et veteribus scrip-

turis.1

' The subscription which he himself appended to his

own principal work (see above, p. 149) shows how scrupulously

exact he was with respect to avrlypa-pu, so that we may givehim credit for having consulted old and reliable manuscriptsof the Apocalypse. The erroneous reading (616) is now foundonly in C and two minuscules (5 and 11).

xxii. 11. The only authorities cited by Tischendorf in

support of the reading cWw0iJt« (in place of Stxaioawnv•?roi>;i7(iTft)) are the two minuscules 38 and 79 and theClementine Vulgate. But we find the passage alluded toin the epistle which the Church of Lyons wrote giving an

APOC] CKITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 335

account of the Martyrdom of the year 177: Iva TrXiipwdjj n

ypa<f»'i- o ai/o/uoy avo/J.>]<TuT(i) en, Kai 1) StKitios SikuuoOi'itw en

(apud Euseb., Eccles. Hist., v. 1, 58). This lends such support

to the reading SucaiwQt'iTw in Apoc. xxii. 11, that Zahn not

unnaturally speaks of it as "certainly the original text"

(GK. i. 201). E. A. Abbott places the date of the Epistle of

the Church of Lyons as early as 155 (see Expositor, 1896,

i. 1 1 1-126). Another aspect would be given to the question if

the Greek form of the Epistle were derived from a Latin, or

if, as Resch supposed, the words were a quotation of a saying

of Jesus (Agrapha, § 133, p. 263 ff.).

I take the opportunity of appending to Resch's work the fine

saying which Zahn cites from Augustine's Contra Adversarium

Ligis et Prophetaruvi (ed. Bassan. x. 659 ff.) as an otherwise

unknown Apocryphum. The disciples asked Jesus "de

Judaeorum prophetis, quid sentire deberet, qui de adventu

eius aliquid cecinisse in praeteritum putantur." And He,

" commotus talia eos etiam nunc sentire, respondit : Dimisistis

vivum qui ante vos est et de mortuis fabulamini." A similar

saying from the Acta Petri Vercell. 10 is cited by Harnack in

connection with the third of the Oxyrhynchus Logia :" Qui

mecum sunt, non me intellexerunt.''

APPENDIX I.

The following is a list of writers most frequently cited in criticaleditions of the New Testament. They are arranged chronologically,but it must be remembered that the dates are more or less uncertain,and that in the case of many writers the period of activity lies intwo centuries :

—

Grkf.k.

Clement of Rome,Ignatius,

Barnabas,

First Centurv.

A- 95d. 107 ?

?

Latin.

Didache,

Hernias,

Marcion (in Epiphanius

and Tertullian),

Aristides,

Polycarp,

Justin Martyr,

Clementine Homilies andRecognitions,

I'apias,

Gosfel of Peter, .

Tatian,

Athenagoras,

Theophilus of Antioch,

Celsus (in Origen),

Hegesippus,

Irena;us (see Latin),

Clement of Alexandria,

Second Century.

?

fl.

d.

d.

140?

'45

'39

»55

165

ca.

fl.

ca.

fl.

fl.

d.

ca.

fl.

190

140

170

170

177

182

180

180

d. 202

fl. 194

Tertullian,. fl. 200

Irenrei Interpres (according to

Tischendorf and Gregory, butsee below).

33« APfENDIX I.

Fifth Century.

Greek.

Nonnus,

Theodore of Mopsuestia,

Victor of Antioch,

Cyril of Alexandria,

Theodotus of Ancyra,

Basil of Seleucia, .

Socrates,

Theodoret,

Cyrus,

Euthalius,

Sozomen,

Bishop of

fl. 400

d. 429

d. 430

d. 444fl. 431

fl. 440fl. 440

d. 457d. 458fl. 440

Latin.

Faustus, fl. 400Hilary of Aries, . d. 429Augustine, . d. 430Prosper of Aquitania, . fl. 431Sedulius, . A- 431Leo the Great, fl. 440Petrus Chrysologus, d. 455Gennadius, . . fl. 459Vigilius,

. fl. 484Auctor libri De fromis-

sionibus.

Sixth Century.

Candidus Isaurus,

Severus of Antioch,

Theodorus Lector,

Andreas, Bishop of

Ctesarea, .

Maxentius, .

Cosmas Indicopleustes,

Eutychius, .

Chronicon Paschale.

fl. 500

fl. 5"fl-5*5

ca. fin.

?

A- 535A- 553

Fulgentius, Bishop of

Ruspe,

Justinian,

Caesarius of Aries,

Primasius, .

d- 533fl-53o

d- 543fl-55o

Victor, Bishop of Tunis, d. 565Cassiodorus, . d. 575Gregory the Great, d. 604

Antiochus the Monk,Andreas of Crete,

Maximus Confessor,

Modestus of Jerusalem,

Seventh Century.

fl. 614jPeter the Deacon,

A- 635?d. 66:

?

1

Eighth Century.

Damascenes, Johannes, fl. 730 I Bcde,

Nicephorus, . . fl. 787 I

Petrus Siculus, . ?

d- 735

APPENDIX I. 339

Ninth Century.

Greek.

Photius of Constanti-

nople, . • . d. 891

Latin.

Tenth Century.

Arethas, • '

Symeon, .?

(Ecumenius, • ca. 950 ?

Suidas the Lexicographer, ca. 980

Eleventh Century

Theophylact, Bishop of

Bulgaria, . . . fl. 1077

Twelfth Century.

Euthymius Zigabenus, . fl. m6Nicetas of Byzantium, . d. 1 206

APPENDIX II.

'Avrtypa<t>a.

I had intended to give in full those passages of the Fathers knownto me in which mention is made of manuscripts prepared by them-

selves or others. In this way I hoped to make a start towards sup-

plying the desideratum spoken of on p. 154 above. But I feel that

in order to be anything like complete, this would occupy too muchspace for the present work. Even the passages in which Origen

speaks of avTiypa<t>a, though not " innumerable," as Zahn says

with a touch of exaggeration, are yet too numerous to be included

here. A considerable number of such passages are already given

in full in TischendorPs Editio Octava. I have contented myself

with giving here an alphabetic list of these, in order to facilitate a

geographical and chronological survey of the relevant matter. Whereonly one passage is given, it will be found in full in Tischendorf.

Passages in which the word avriyptuftov itself or its synonyms (codex,

exemplar, etc.) does not occur, but where express mention is yet

made of readings found in manuscripts, are given in brackets.

Some surprising facts are brought to light by such quotations.

Witness the remark made by Basil the Great (ob. 379) on Lukexxii. 36, who tells us that in Cappadocia in his time many manu-scripts, indeed, if the text is correct the majority of manuscripts (to.

jroAAi tuc avTiypd<t>wv), exhibited a reading now found in only onesingle manuscript, and that the main representative of the " Western "

text ; I refer to Codex Bezae. See above on Luke xxii. 36. I maymention here that a certain " Basilius diaconus"was the possessor

of a magnificent Bible, the cover of the first part of which wasused for Codex Syrohexaplaris Ambrosianus. The inscription ran :

t BIBA02 A TON ©ElfiN|rPA*flN 1IAAAIA2 KAI

|| NEA2AIA011KH2 AIA<t>EP|EI| AE BASIAEin AIAKON«t|. See the

APPENDIX 11.341

facsimile and description in Ceriani's edition, Monuvunta Sacra et

Pro/ana, vol. vii., folio.

Adamantius (i.e. Origen), see Hieronymus.rnrrprted in

Ambrosiaster, Rom. v. ,4; the quotation should b ^corrected „

accordance with Haussleiter, Forschungen, iv. 32 ;(Rom. xn. 13),

1 Cor. v. 3 ; Gal. ii. 5.

Ambrose, Luke vii. 35; Gal. iv. 8.

Anastasius, Matt, xxvii. 18.

Andreas, Apoc. iii. 7. ..

Apollinarius, possibly mentioned in the scholia in Codex Marchalianus

(see Swete's Septuagint, iii. p. viii), John vn. 53.

, see Macedonius.

Apollonides, Eusebius, Ecdes. Hist., v. 28.

Arethas, Apoc. i. 2, iii. 7.

Asclepiades, Eusebius, Ecdes. Hist., v. 28.

Athanasius (also Pseudo-Athanasius), Matt. v. 22 ; 2 Thess. 11. 9 ;tor

his mention of the raria made for the Emperor Constans, see

above, p. 181, note, and p. 184; Zahn's Forschungen, 111. 100,

GK. i. 73- /D ... ,

Augustine, Matt, xxvii. 9 ; Luke iii. 22 ; Rom. v. 14 ;(Rom. xm. 14) J

1 Cor. xv. 5 ; Phil. iii. 3.

Basil (the Great), Luke xxii. 36 ; Ephes. i. 1 ;Zahn, Einleilung,

i 345-

Bede, Acts, passim.

Chronicon Paschale, John xix. 14 (see above, p. 30).

Chrysostom, John i 28.

Didymus, 2 Cor. i. 1.t t

Epiphanius, Matt. i. 8, ii. 11 (ris n^pas lavrw, tj tow drjvavpovs, u.s

cX« cV.a tSx &mypA4*n>, i. 43°. " o8 5)- See Westcott and Hort,

"Notes," in loco; Matt. viii. 28; Luke viii. 26, xix. 41,

(xxii. 43 f.) ;John i. 28 ; Ephes. i. 1.

Eusebius, Matt. xiii. 35, xxvii. 9 ; Mark i. 2, xvi. 3, 9 ff.;John

xix. 14.

Euthalius, Jude 25.

Euthymius, (Mark xvi. 9) ; John vii. 53.

Gregory of Nyssa (Pseudo-), Mark xvi. 2, 9.

Hermophilus, Eusebius, Ecdes: Hist., v. 28.

Hesychius, Mark xvi. 2, 9.

Hieronymus (Jerome), Matt. xiii. 35, xxi. 31, xxiv. 17 ;Mark iii. 17,

342 APPENDIX II.

xvi. g ; Luke ii. 33, (xviii. 30), xxii. 43 f.; John vii. 53 ; Acts

xv. 29 ; 1 Cor. ix. 5 ; Gal. ii. 5, iii. 1 ; Ephes. iii. 14 ; 1 Tim.v. 19 j Heb. ii. 10.

Irenaeus, Apoc. xiii. 18 (see above, in loco).

Isidore, Heb. ix. 17.

Macedonius (see Draeseke, ThStKr., 1890, 12), Rom. viii. 11.

Marcion, see Epiphanius, Ephes. i. 1.

Maximinus, 1 Cor. xv. 47.

CEcumenius, Acts xiv. 26.

Origen, Matt. ii. 18, viii. 28, xvi. 20, xviii. 1, (xix. 19), (xxi. 15),

(xxvii. 9), xxvii. 16 ff. (see above, in loco); Mark ii. 14;Luke i. 46; John i. 28; Rom. iv. 3, xvi. 23 (see Zahn, Ein-

leituiig, i, 276, 285); Col. ii. 15.

Pierius, see Hieronymus.

Severus, Mark xvi. 9.

Socrates, 1 John iv. 3.

Theodoret, Rom. xvi. 3.

Theodore of Mopsuestia, Heb. ii. 10.

Theodotus, Eusebius, Ecclts. Hist., v. 28.

Theophylact, 2 Thess. iii. 14; Heb. ii. 10, x. 1.

Victor, Mark xvi. 9.

Mention is made of avriypafa in anonymous scholia on Matt. ii. 18,

xx. 28, (xxii. 12); Mark xi. 13; Luke xvi. 19 (giving the nameof the Rich Man as Ninive, i.e., Phinees ; see Rendel Harris in the

Expositor, March 1900); Luke xxii. 43 f., xxiv. 13; John i. 29,vii. S3, xxi. 25 ; Rom. viii. 24.

INDEX I.

Abbot, E.,9, 58.

Abbreviation, 48, 315, 317, 330.Accentuation, 47, 61.

Achmim, dialect of, 133, 135.

Acts, text of, 224, 294.Adamantius, 187.

Additions, 238.

Adler, 19, 103.

African Latin, 1 10, 1 19.

Aggaeus, 96.

Alcuin, 125, 176.

Aldus, 2.

Ambrose, 109, 205.

Ambrosiaster, 148, 205.

Amelineau, 70, 135, 137.

Amelli, 1 13.

Ammonian sections, 56.

Andreas, 191, 329.

Anselm, 7.

Antilegomena, 12, 95, 321.

Anthony, 135.

Antwerp Polyglot, 10.

Aphraates, 98, 216, 254, 293, 321.

Apocrypha, 26, 1 37.

Apollonides, 200 f.

Apollos, 242.

Apostolicum of Marcion, 207.

Arabic version, 142.

Aramaic, 93.

Arethas, 191, 329.

Arians, 205.

Arias Montanus, 10.

Aristion, 142, 295.

Armenian version, 141.

Artemonites, 200.

Article, importance of the, 258, 287,

288, 295, 328.

Asclepiades, 200 f.

Asterisks, 101, 186.

Athanasius, 62, 181, 183.

Dialogue of A. and Zacchaeus,

99 n.

Athos manuscripts, 90, 152, 190.

Augustine, 108, 120, 147.

Autographs, 29 f, 97.

Bale, 139-Baljon, 24, 168.

Barabbas, prenomen of, 103, 244, 259.

Barnabas, 30, 54 f.

Bamard, 15411.

Basil the Great, 277, 340.

Basilides, 203.

Hashmu ric dialect, 1 33.

Bathgeo, 105.

Batiffol, 73, 75, 139.

Bebb, 95.

Bede, 75, 221.

Bellarmin, 127.

Belsheim, 112 ff.

Benedict, Rule of, 173.

Bengel. 3, 16, 30, 123, 221, 256.

Bensly, 79, 97, 102, 105.

Bentley, 16, 77, 83.

Berger, J. G., 30.

Berger, S., Ill, Il6f, 123, 130.

Bernhardt, 139.

Bernoulli, 174.

Bernstein, 100.

Bertheau, 18.

Bessarion, 87.

Beurlier, 117.

Beza, 9, 64, 221.

Bibliotheca, 39, 53.

Bidez, 174.

Birch, 19.

Bianchini, III f., 131.

Blass, 32, 65, 163, 224, 260.

Bohainc version, 133.

Boniface, 46, 122.

Bonnet, 26.

Bonus, 105.

Boetticher, see Lagarde.

Bouriant, 135.

Bousset, 91, 158, 329.

Brandscheid, 26.

344 INDEX I.

Breathings, 47.Hrightman, 66.

British and Foreign Bible Society, 4,

Brugsch, 137.

Burgon, 83, 146, 159.Burkitt, 97, 104 f, 109, 131, 139, 143,

229.

Byzantine Recension, 21, l8off.

Canons of Criticism, 16, 234, 239.-—— Eusebian, 56, 263.Capitals, 34, 59, 261.

Cary, 160.

Caryophilus, 14.

Cassels, 106.

Cassiodoms, 50, 128, 175.Castle, 12.

Catalogus Claromontanus, 76, 162.Catenae, 147.Celsus, 144, 204, 296.Ceolfrid, 122.

Cephaleus, 7.

Ceriani, 116.

Ceugney, 135.Chapter division, 8.

Charlemagne, 125.Charles the Bald, 125.Charles, K. II., 140.

Chase, 65, 216, 274.Cheikho, 104.

Chronicon Paschale, 30.Chrysostom, 92, 181.

Ciasca, 135.Clay as writing material, 45.Clement of Rome. 59, no, 153.

of Alexandria, 147, 153, 204.Clementine Vulgate, 127.Codex, 41.

Cola and Commata, 49.Colinaeus, 7.

Columns, 37.Comma Johanneum, 4, 26, 30, &6, 327.Complutensian Polyglot. 1.

Conflate readings, 245.Confusion of vowels and consonants,

I68JT., 236, 262.Conjectural emendation, 167.Constans, 181, 183.Constantine, 54, 205.Contents of manuscripts, 38, 52.Conybeare, 79, 99, 142.Copinger, 6.

Coptic dialect, 132.Copying, mistakes in, 37, 170, 234 ft,

3'3. 330.

Corpus Scriptorum EcclesiasticorumLatinorum, 146.

Corrections, intentional, 192, 209, 239.Corrector (5np0a>T^s), 57.Correctoria Bibliorum, 126.

Corruption of the text, Greek and Latin

terms for, 198.

Corssen, 116, 123.

Cotton paper, 36, 44.Courcelles, 14.

Cozza, 60, 62.

Crcdner, 65.

Criticism, object of textual, 28, 156.

subjective, 157.Cromwell, 12.

Cronin, 68.

Crowfoot, 105.

Crum, 135 f.

Curetonian Syriac, 97, 104, 248.Cursive script, 35, 81 f.

Cursive manuscripts, see Minuscules.Cyprian, 117, 119, 147.Cyril Lucar, 13, 58.

Damasus, 107.

Dated manuscripts, 69, 72, 300 n.

Deane, 101, 103.

De Dien, 101.

AenrroKX^Toip, 217, 256.Delisle, 123.

Delitzsch, 2, 4, 5.

Dialects of Egypt, 132.

of Palestine, 93, 103.

Diatessaron, see Tatian.

Dictation, 234, 29S.

Didascalia, 155.Dillmann, 140.

Dionysius of Corinth, 199.

AiopflwTi'jr, see Corrector.

Al00f'pa, 41, 43.Dobschiltz, von, 70, 72, 79, 123.Dogmatic alterations, 166, 197 f., 200 ft.,

209, 239.Dutch school of conjectural criticism,

168.

Dzialzko, 33.

Eckstein, 139.Eclectic method of criticism, 170.Editio Regia, 7.

Editions, number of, 5.

collections of, 5.

size of, 7.

Catholic, 25.

Egyptian versions, 132 IT.

Ehrhard, 79.

INDEX I.34S

Ellis, 16.

Elzeur, 13.

Engelbreth, 135-

Ephraem, 98, 106, 216, 254.

Erasmus, 3, 146-

Erizzo, 102.

Errors, sources of, 234 II.

Ess, van, 25.

Ethiopic version, 140.

Etschmiadzin manuscript, 142, 295.

Eug'Pus iI22>

Eumenes, King of Pergamum, 40.

Eusebius of Caesarea, 54, 5°. "79. >»5-

Eusebian Canons, 56, 263.

Euthalius, 78 f., 188.

Evagrius,78n.Evangeliaria, 39 f., 9' '•. lob -

Fabiani, 60, 62.

Families of manuscripts, 17, 1 19. '7° "•

Fathers, list of. See Appendix I.

Fayumic dialect, 133, 135- .

Falsification of text by heretics, 197 n-

Fell, 15, 133-

FerrarGroup,84f..99. '77-

Field, 181, 264.

Ford, 134.

Froben, 3, 126.

GabelenU, 139-

Gebhardt, O. von, 7, 22 ., 73, 174-

Gehringcr, 25.

Gelasian Decree, 183.

Genealogical method, 164, 171".

Gennadius, 173.

Georgian version, 142.

Gibson, 97, 105, 106, 144-

Gildemeistcr, 140.

Gnostics, 203 f.

Goltz, von der, 90, 190.

Goodspeed, 91.

Gospels, collection and order ot, 101 1.

division of, 56, 61.

title of, 165, 247.

Gospel-book of Marcion, 207.

Gothic version, 137 ff.

Gousscn, 135, 137-

Graefe, 66, 231.

Grandval Bible, 125.

Gratz, 25.

Graux, 48.

Gregory, Pope, 125.

Gregory of Nyssa, 87.

Gregory, C. Rene, 6, 7, 20, 83, 91,

III.

Grenfell, 74-

Gfiesbach, 18.

Guidi, 140.

Gwilliam, 96. lo3. 104-

Gwynn, 102, 106.

Haase, 114.

Haberlin, 43.

llahn, 206 11.

Hall, Isaac H., 6, 8, 100.

Hammond, 159.

Harding, 125.

Harklean Syriac, 79. «°°- Io6'

,89,

255.

Harmony of the Gospels, 16, 98.

Harnack, 155, 202, 232

Harris, J. K., 30, 44. <>5. 74. 86, 9L

97, 102, 105 f., 115. 153. 2I 4-

Haseloff, 73.

Hauler, 155.

Haussleiter, 311.

Hebrew Bible printed, !.

Hebrews, Gospel of the, 72, 9°-

Hegesippus, 96.

Heidenreich, 119 mHenten, 127. 128.

Heracleon, 203.

Heretics, their falsifications, 197 •>•

Hermas, 47, 54.

Hermophilus, 200 f.

Hesychius, 61, 62, 183 ff.

Hetzenauer, 25, 132.

Heyne, 1 39.

Hieronymus, see Jerome.

Hilgenfeld, 26, 116. Addenda.

Hill, 105.

HiUig, 169, 309.

Hogg, 106, 214.

Holtzmann, 6, 116.

Holzhey, 105.

Homer, manuscripts of, 33.

Homoioteleuton, 235!.

Hoppe, 139.

Horner, 134, 136.

Hott, 21, 170 f.

Hoskier, 5, 62, 83.

Hug, 61, 182.

Hunt, 74-

Hyvernat, 135, 13°-

Iberian version, see Georgian.

Ignatius, 146, 300 n.

Illustrated manuscripts, 51.

Indiction, 69.

Indiculus Chettonianus, 161.

Ink, 42.

Interpolation, 238, 241 n.

346 INDEX I.

Irenams, 147, 176, 202 fT.

Irico, III.

Irish hands in manuscripts, 77, 113, 129.Iscariot, the variants, 242.Ishodad, 282.

Islinger, 79.Itacism, 236, 287.Itala, 109.

'Iwawijs, spelling of the name, 162 f.

Jacob, 63.

Jannon, 7.

Jaumann, 25.

Jebb, 16.

Jerome, 107, 124, 173.Jerusalem Syriac, 102, 106.Jostes, 139.Jovinian, 155.Julian the Apostate, 144, 174.Jiilicher, 116, 198.Junius, 10.

Karkaphensian version, 103.Karlsson, 116.

Kauffmann, 139, 181. Addenda.Kaulen, 123, 130, 131.Kcnyon, 33, 58, 81.Kipling, 65.Knapp, 19.

Koetschau. 149 ft.

Krall, 135.Kroll, 155.Klister, 15.

La Croze, 66, 134, 141.Lachmann, 19, 83, 123.Lagarde, Paul dc, 30, 60, 95, 102, 106,

137, 140, 143. 223-A. de, 106.

Lake, 66, 73, 91.Land, 103 n.

Langton, 8.

Laodic^ea, Epistle to, 77, 114, 129207,299,313.

Latin versions, 107 ff.

Laud, Archbishop, 75.Lead as writing material, 44.Lectionaries, 39, 91.Lejay, 11.

Le Long, 95.Leo X. , Tope, 2, 3.

Leusden, 104.

I^ewis, 97, 102, 105, 106.Lewis Syriac, see Sinai Syriac.Linen as writing material, 45.Lines in manuscripts, 37.Linke, 112.

Linwood, 168 n.

Lippelt, 162 f.

Liturgical alterations, 91, 239, 267.Loebe, 139.London Polyglot, 12.

Louvain Vuigate, see Ilenten.Lohlein, 104.

Lowe, 140.

Lucas Brugensis, 127, 146.Lucian, 85, 138, 180 If.

Luft, 139, 140.Luther, 5, 149 n., 286, 309.

Mace, 16.

Mae»tricht, Gerhard von, 16, 239.Mai, Cardinal, 60, 113, 139.Manuscripts, age and locality, 35.

contents, 3S, 52 f.

de luxe, 49.material, 36, 40 ff.

number, 33, 81 , 89, 90, 92.size, 38.

Marcion, 87, 205, 206 ff.

Marcosians, 202.

Margoliouth, 106.

Marshall, 133.Martin, Abbe, 160.

Martyrs, era of, 136.Masch, 95.Maspero, 135.Masudi, 162.

Materials for writing, 40 ft.

Matthaei, 19.

Ma-rflatoj, spelling of the name, 247.Mazarin Bible, 126.

Melanchthon, 86, 140, 159.MefiPpivai, 36, 41.Memphitic dialect, 133.Mercator, 138.Merx, 105, 106.

Mesrob, 141.

Michaelis, 104.

Middle Egyptian versions, 133, 135.Mill, 15.

Miller, 6, 152, 159.Mingarelli, 135.Minuscules, 34, 82, 83 If.

Moldenhauer, 19.

Montfortianus, 4, 86.Mori lion, 138.

Morin, 11.

Morrish, 170.

Miiller, 139.Mllnter, 135.

v abbreviated at the end of a word,

3>S. 33°-

INDEX I. 347

Name of Dives, 342.

Names, importance of proper, 241.

of the two thieves, 266.

of prophets confused, 251, 258.

Negative liable to be omitted, see ov.

Nestle, 3, 17, 23, 26, 48, 65, 132.

Noetus, 203.

Northumbrian manuscripts, 125, 176.

Novatian, 155.

Number of words in the N.T., 48.

of manuscripts. See Manuscripts.

of Greek editions printed, 5.

of letters in the N.T., 48.

Obelus, 101, 186.

Oikonomos, 49n., 189.

Old Latin version and manuscripts, I ioff.

Order of the Gospels, 161 f.

of the Catholic Epistles, 321.

of the Pauline Epistles, 300 f.

Order of words, variation in the, 237.

Origen, 147, 149 ft"., 185 ff.

Orthodox correctors, 1 92.

Osgan, 141.

ov, omission and insertion of, 3Ion -

Oxyrhynchus papyri, 74, 80.

Palieography, 32 f., 81 (., 1 81, 184.

Palestinian Syriac, 102.

Palimpsest, 37, 51, 63.

Pamphilus, 57, 78, 185 ff.

wavSJKTTis, 39, 53.

Paper, 36, 44.

Papyrus, 36, 42.

Parchment, 36, 40.

Paris Polyglot, II.

Correctoria, 126.

Patricius, 25.

Paul's "Books," 45.Paul of Telia, 102.

Pens, 45.Pericopae, 39, 91, 239, 267, 277.

Pericope adulters, 68, 84, 112, 142,

177, 282 ff.

Peshitto version, 95, 103 f.

Philoxenian Syriac, 100.

Pickering, 7.

Pierius, 187.

Pius V., Pope, 127.

Plantin, 10 f.

Pococke, 100.

Polycarp the Chorepiscopus, irjo.

Polyglots, I, 10 ft.

Pott, his view of Acts, 294.Praetorius, 140.

Praxapostolos, 40, 92.

Preuschen, 161, n. 1.

Printing of the. N.T., earliest, I, 3.

IPrimasius, 119, 148.

1 Priscillian, 119.

too and wpot, 237 n.

Prologues in Latin Gospels, 1 15 '•

Proper names, see Names.Provencal New Testament, 117.

Psalters, 3, 68.

Pseudepigrapha, 26.

Punctuation in manuscripts, 38, 52 -

importance of, $2, 201, 204,»'26l,

276, 297.

Quatemio, 41.

Quotations, 32, 144 ff.

Quotation, marks of, 38.

Rabbulas of Edessa, 98, 104.

Kahlfs, 35 n., 62, 183 ff.

Ranke, 113, 129.

Ravianus, 86.

Reading and writing.Greek termsfor, 46.

Reed pen, 45.Rehdiger, 114.

Reithmayer, 25.

Resch, 26, 280.

Resultant Greek Testament, 22.

Reuss, 6, 11, 159.

Richelieu, 11.

Ridley, 100.

Riegler, 130.

Rieu, 141.

Riggenbach, 190.

Robinson, 79, 106.

Rocchi, 60.

Roll, 36, 41, 43.

Ronsch, 118, 123, 131, 146.

Rooses, 1 1

.

Rossini, 140.

Rilegg, 231. Addenda.Rules of textual criticism, 234 ff.

Saalfeld, 131.

Sabatier, III, 131.

Sachau, 282.

Sahak, 141.

Sahidic version, 1 34.

Salmon, 160, 170, 227.

Saubert, 14.

Schaaf, 104.

Schaff, 6.

Schjett, 24, 165.

Schmidt, 137.

Schmiedel, 56 n., 117.

Scholz, 19.

Schultze, 41 n., 51.

Schulz, 65.

348 INDEX I.

Schwartze, 134.

Scriptio continua, 37, 47, 315, 330.Script, various kinds of, 34 f., 81 fl'.

Scrivener, 6, 8, 33, 58, 65, 77, 83.

Sections, 56, 61 n.

Seidel, 66.

Semler, 18.

Sergio, 60.

Simon of Cyrene, 203.Simon Magus, 205, 324 n.

Simon, Richard, 15, 95.Sinai Syriac, 97, 105.

Sionita, 11.

Sitterly, 33.Sixtus V., 1'ope, 127.Skeat, 140.

Speculum Augustini, 114.

SteindorfT, 134.Stephen, Henry, 7.

Robert, 7, 126.

Stichometry, 37, 48, 49.

Stilus, 45.Si rein, 138.

Stunica, I.

Stuttgart New Testament, 23.

Subjective criticism, 157.Subscriptions, 57, 69, 72, 78, 122, 188,

189, 260, etc.

Sulke, see Euthalius,

Swete, 26.

Syllables, division of, 48.

Synodos, 1 40.

Synonyms, interchange of, 236.

Syriac versions, 95 fl".

Syro-Latin, 216, 218, 223.

ffufidrtovy 4' 1 54 '•

Tatian, 97, 105, 212 ff.

his Diatessaron, 98, 105, 212 fT.

Tattam, 134.

Taxvypd<t>oi, 50.

Taylor, Isaac, 172 n.

Tertullian, 29, 119, 146, 147, 276.

t«DX oj, 53.

Textual criticism, literature of, 6, 159.Textus brevior, 245.Textus receptus, 13,Thaddaeus, 96.

Thebaic dialect, 113.

Theile, 19.

Theodore of Tarsus, 75.Theodoret, 98, 213.

Theodotus, 200 f.

Theodulf, 125.

Thomas of Heraclea, 100.

Thompson, E. M., 33, 59.

Timothy and Aquila, Dialogue of, 99 n.

Tischendorf, 19, 26, 53, 58, 63.

Title of the Gospels, 164, 247.Tittmann, 19.

Toinard, 15.

Trabaud, 65.

Transcriptional errors, 234 ff.

Transposition of letters and words, 236 f.

Traube, 173.Tregelles, 6 20, 83, 141, 159.Tremellius, 10.

Trent, Council of, 127.

Tuki, 135, 137.

Ubaldi, 60.

Ulfilas, 137.

Uncial script, 34, 8 if.

Uncial manuscripts, 53 fT.

number of, 81.

Valder, 7.

Valentinians, 198, 203.Valla, Laurentius, 126.

Vercellone, 60 ff, 123.

Verse division, 8.

Versions :

Syriac, 95.Latin, 107.

Egyptian, 132.

Gothic, 137.

Ethiopic, 140.

Armenian, 141.

Georgian, I42.

Arabic, 142.

other, 143.Victor of Capua, 122, 308,Vincent, 160.

Vogt, 139.Vollert, 34 n., 35.Voss, 138.

Vulgate, 25, 109, 122 ff., 127, 132.

Walton, 12.

Warfield, 159.

Weiss, 22, 229.

Wells, 16.

Westcott and Hort, their N.T., 21.

their types of text, 21.

their method, 171.

Western text, 211, 214, 221.

Wcttstein, 18.

Weymouth, 22.

White, II. J., 131.

White, Joseph, 100.

Widmanstadt, 95.Wilcken, 33, 43.Wilkins, 133.

William of Hirsau, 126.

INDEX I.349

Wobbermin, 90.

Woide, 134-

Wolf, J.Chr.,66f.

Wblfflin, 118, 175.

Wordsworth and White, 123, 131, 174.

176.

Wright, Arthur, 26.

Writing, styles of, 34 f., 81 ft.

Greek terms for, 46.

Xenaia, see Philoxenian-Syriac.

Ximenes, I.

Years, reckoning of, 69 n. , 100 n„ 141 ».

Zahn, 160, 196 n. 2, 208 ff., 218, 224.

Ziegler, 118, 123, 13°-

Ziramer, 77. " 8 -

Zoega, 135-*

Zohrab, 141.

Zwingli, 86.

Zycha, 1 30.

INDEX II.

Passages of the New Testament referred to.

Note.—Passages treated in the Critical Notes are not entered here.

Matthew.

I. 2,

i. 3. •

i. ii, .

i. 16, .

i. 25, .

lii. is, .

v. 3. 4. •

v. io, .

V. 22, .

vi. 8, .

viii. 9, .

ix. 1 8, .

*• 33.xiii. 17,

xvi. 23,

xviii. 20,

xix. 17,

xx. 28 f.,

1. 11, .

viii. 38,ix. 7,

x. 40, .

xiii. 22,

xvi. 8, .

Mark.

Luke.

'• 35.

>• 46-55.i. 68-79,ii. 7, .

iii. 27, .

165165166

99166166

166

204167

192

52

37150203

37«43

239216

52

150

52

37239

67, 142

201

3

3166

242

vi. 4f., .

ix. 26, .

xi. 2,

xiii. 7, S,

xvi. 12,

xvi. 19,

xvii. 10,

xx. 30, .

xxi. 30,xxii. 52,

xxiii. S3.xxiv. 4, 5, 1

1

xxiv. 26,

xxiv. 51-53,

PACE

. 64

. I50

64,87• '93

211

• 342• 237. 241. 211

22664, 136

13. • «20. 211

230, 245

John.

I. 14, .

i. 28, .

II. 20, .

iii. 6, .

v. 8, .

vi. 47, •

vi. 71, .

vii. 39. •

vii. 53. •

xvi. 13,

xix. 14,

xix. 34,

' 5.

iii. 14,

iv. 6,

iv. 12,

Acts.

201

203. 203

"20

5198

• 245242

• 245'42, 177

. 124

• 3°227

'36170

243237

PLATE I.

AyToyAiKryvYcDHôiAeiCToycMd)N KCTCU NMUJNU)AM II N

nApAKAAcL>A.eyM>'AA€AÔIXN6XeceeToyAoroyrH-n AfNKXH CG(X)CKAiOfMARpAXecuNcn*CTIAAYMINre I NCJDCKeT6TONAAC Acj>0N H MCUN

Ay m e n o N M eeoye^NTAxioNecxHU'ceeofoM A I y MA-AC n acAceAin km 9 3 1!

^ ? ttacroyc h r oy m *

N OyCYM CDN K A|

H ANTACTOy CAT l"T*

AUT I 1 AZON TAI YM A«

OLA-nOTHClTAAl*HXAÎCM CTAn AHJCO N yM CDN A^JhN >->

rif«c «k|»ai-y«

(i) N- Codex Sinaiticus.

Last column of Hebrews (xiii. 21-25).

V

hoc

PLATE II.

*•*». KuW

(HMeNOJMnOltoeAWATCOAOjACeiTONGNKA iToyToe i"n com A e r e iaytco AKoAoyeeiinoieTTiCTpA^>6icieoneTpocMeneiTONMAeHTMONHrATTA IHC AKQAOyeOYNTAocj<a iamerrece isiemtcoaemmCDerriTocT noocAYToy j<AiemeMAYTtoJ<e TlCeCT»hs»OTlAJ»AAlAU3MCeToyToNoYMeiAcpMOTTeTjocAere»^V"rcoiHyj<e oYtocact i • Aere iAYtcdoihceAhaAYTotsi oeAcoMe N»e ikj oyTcocecDcepAOinAiTinj»occe cyMoiAKoAoyeeieZHAoeiMoYrJoYTocoAoiroceicToYc

(l) 1). CODI'X Hizaf. Cantaiikiciensis.

John wi. 19 23.

OYKAC^HMONei6Y^HTeiTXeAyTH c

OyAorrzeTAlTOKAKONoyxAipeieniTH^MKucynxAireiAeTHAAHeVAnANTAcTereinANTAnicTeyeinANTAeAnizeipta nta ynoMe'Neih a nXnHOYAenoTeeKniriTej t

*KPLATE III.

Kl

(2) I)(Mill

Codex Ci.aromontanus.

Corinthians xiii. 5-8.

îqhjrfiCAhJiSqxiAcnoxTenoMaMFiCAbiTdcnET»ioccucndi>c<iSeTdiciTill iêqu^jLecne1 C0MU«LSX4jAuTe<ru»eTji.t4S\i»deTd^cir\jlijariS\jecndili<;4EbATilvs .sesuewrecn«l*jie"ij^c"u*>

'u ,T ,hJce>4A•SUTejU*

g

ct vjiyg tuy eTduoTillidone«|ut.se5"~rstjiXRAdidiTTehurvicQxcovjid e NjjeTjûyd ic iTAdjhcndc*iehicAviTear»suid- diciTiUiiHsSi€uonuolosiccr»AKjejieuS3XJ€dii<nvie?>iio cjuidAdTertJcnes'esvien.e

. eXlUITeJLCO»llCW€Kbx>S. AJ»UTJ!lA"rj5jES

(1) d Codex Kezaf. Cantahrioif.nsis.

John xxi. 19 23.

NONXmblTlOS\65TMOJqXJVGRlTquxeSUXSUWTWOKIIKIUITXTU'Rwo wCo£ lTXTmxl umVJOKigxudeTSupe uiKiiquiTXTerncovjcxu dexxxjTecntjeRiTKTiomKnxsurFemTomvn\CR€diTomN ixs pe tixtOmw IXSU ST€ KJG TCXTilTX.Svj u cr» q ci xrr» exc 1 d e t

(2) d'™" . Codex Ci.aromontanus.

1 Corinthians xiii. 5-8.

PLATE V.

SlNAITIC SVRIAC I'AMMPSEST (Lewis).

Matthew xv. 12-27.

l'LATE IV.

m i m -rd » j a fo o n e k th«ey'f^CTdyMWH Me»oyK A| AN *,8A6 ^*C Kl&e<x>|»6ycifj6'TiA.M^»«:eKyKi C"rkkSaigo c^KirAfM GTAC C <A> O AJ'A KAIÂeOyCltieKTOMNHMfiON e'lAONNCXN ICKONKAe h'm6non esi-roic

MOHCTOXHNA.eyK^NKA i eêe ami hbhcan6a£ a,ere i a

1

y ttX,icm &«?K 9AMlCIC06'lN*ZHT«lfCTON NA^\|>HNOvN7r€ C"T*Yf<pM6NON d r«f£ H OY K eCJ| H CDA€ )*•_oTon oc 6'n oyee m k a.

^yt o"n aaA Ayn jJ. re t*eiriAreToicM aoht*ic

£yT~dy k X i to) n €'~rfa>QTi npo^rsiyMiceicTHN r*.MA*lAN£ KSIAflTTONoêceeKêuj^flinei^fMiN KAiea.GAQ^T'Ca 1 6<pyro N^Cn b-roYm n h

x#ci 6 1 oy elx 6 n r>p

Ay TA C TpoMOCKAI €K*. CTs

ACI C ICAI <3VA.6N3 °YT a€n einoM^cpo&oyN

A To ta"p : v >—«E3 **v.w—

t

PLATE VI.

atfjffi

feewwt1UUS HAt4RitiiKts %$m

ymtss.„.,... - .';rW-„

_p.LooiKi>BecioNis'

.jMiTCro&esYNXaxj* -

aKjrTIN<XXTKKr>StOKWf(

xuTftnsunoNis_XTURO>\CNISFeBRIP» '

^-âeRUNT illiunpRoex

.

STXNS$upcRtLLxw KODeniÂ

"

'-TpeoW eT&cPisiT iLUcp>*:-^^jictincioscihowb ..-,.. ;;-

,{ptK£TRMu,TilJLb'f' .; . r»{

sC^ss4>«r«>cT>ocojdts5eT -

-'

* XXtntMSgUlhXfieittNTINpR ;

t": <nos tixrursL>N«5uoRi5U*i

tr • . OooenxNT ILos x*»euro. XT iteiNûLis oruNus tcnpo

*' Ness curxdxteos .- -v

^jcietwiNf e-nxre>OXemoNiv&^ x<rvUbjKicbBtiUNiriAeTC>( ' *

^ aeNTu <quiMTue> ciUusoi

§6»cxtorcsxuTear>OisceNOe*?•£pXNTeikxUXBXNr RenX 03A««NdeNS Atixecn iNUKiup^

'|{ nxucxv» quxeeuxT

•- -SHTKJNIS

. Ko^xurrxui'cxn xicnux' jj*nediiceRe pusill,u»v> %™

. eTSeOtNS OoccnxT j

t _,. -OeNXUICuLXTUROXS..-jgLbxESsxtirr MrrecoLoqul.TÔixrrxCvsiOToNcuo

_due in'xUixkp eTLxxxTncnCUeSTRXINCXpTURMW :'4/W%

eTRespowOeNS skikn ,V.gfj

f>IXITlUj< TfpuxooepTOR paiTOTXtn .-,

Nocitio Lutoitxhrres ^.fJjifsiNibiL.oq.Moxis ..' v..v VA^%g

lNuem$oxurerr>TUO.Lxxrxuo r^tc

exouoi hoc pscissosT • ffOONCl,USCRU'«T ptS^^RKP ft

;', trKil,TiTuC>iNea>oopi^^^|t1• RMQ>pa»xuuxuTeLnl«cTBec%^1

2#

CODKX AM1ATINUS, cilCil 700 A.U.

Luke iv. 36-41 ; v. 2-6.

(reduced.)

PLATE VII.

tfLuifindtcituiiai<ûMjiaiztilc--etzno(Tufr%tt'fin[ioc '}

•f'fnuruL) -Ximor-ntmTAnaj-mxcfcdpej fcccAOLrxtaJT

C^t/inancxtrnot-e^t^nrnxttritn'octnJiU.yl-it-ccfutjutê

W?X.nt^nvafpnot- dileicnoP S"f"tfc!yee»-ic<jrnndi

iJniecfVaxrefiuiocumc monetise ecluiJutznon

Qd^tffrvcreftuJtfunitcLzJmtjuerion uid&cqiumc

J<t>popeftJtI»cer« 'CcI»o«!fnAjit£xmxAo^^tmyjfuc

^'jLuAlLctedfndiLinx ti.fi ko e rn (uum

'^ynmiifAKrediccfnTnmfoycfCeyiAonAzur^CTtnririiC

^^dinat^riccucjutrcnutr'cltlxnrccnu<uinxBifV"nC<v

t^^rAtôi'ptctLxrnufc^ntndiU.ntTiiifrtAzvCAiciIJiTn diL ,

CT-ium.iionfutrrcJnmomncqtioJnitrrc cxJouinctC '

^j'niuniiu extiAixc utcrprTA^tiAfrmnctcmunduîiJcr' '

U|nr>L'Cllu^<]uuiinctc>nundunift<juvCT-ociuxinrrit|{/^'

jj» Ûaratntc-c--<juiu«TiiBper-Ju3uarerfjLnrxiin«JiM^*

*' 7£ppn<>ntn*û*.foLrfeJin*^jujCexfa.Ttcvi«n^'ecfpr

Ip!attttrfem<mui<i*^fpf\i|<i»frfXtigutf^cixrt<unUfuTre

• utrwnuiArin(e-t\a\yioncrtJiarfAu> mentLttmfaac

fCufnanrnrtffricr^dictttttiTirnorno<luoavr(Tific*xuf?&^

"Charlemagne's uhile," or Hiiile of Grandval, of the ninth century, in the

British Museum (rechjeed).

I John iv. 16—v. 10, showing the omission of the " comma Johanneum,1'v. 7.

PLATE VIII.

^M?ilTf'rilV,i>l"Yf^FMnKlôM*;.

^' ^•^'" i-'

,

~ '' fiiif?!t*MMoVMKWf. $)•

H$p£«a « klV€Y<»'«MM '

-

vrjijp <*>>» foV*MM«»j /

»v.fm • i kia'i«»^h

.^•tfOVF F <l FroafyjiSil*** M*J F1H ?H'f

ov*l FTAiariMÎ

" f»twi<*p.iu;",j

iSiMW'rJUJ'FfSovei y&

,

«r<îr-*fFMPj»fr

HY«Hyoc.t*trrX9 eh ... ,

Ml1: ^.'.

Sahidic MANUSCRIPT, probably 01 the fifth century, in the British Museum.

2 Thessalonians iii. 2-1 1.

PLATE IX.

u25 l-

Q n< -

o JS

s |n »j

Z o< Cs «»

o

s

-acW

ri^rt i c a.

|liE^lvr™A'T «i*~T,\, |C« •"* ~"* "5£. ?•.

|* o^of ^iXa/ a i <r i*/ -ro « er t» i * Gy ^-6- K>

aJ

f •

1T0N i>>. tunTAMTATUfHriHA.vMWJrrmp*

^, t«W|»HtVMT'm«t*TncrtiA»MUt<

TA*.**t,*>f»rAj{

MINUSCULE Evv. 274 (Par. Nat Suppl. Gr. 79) of the tenth century.

Mark xvi. 6-15, exhibiting the shorter conclusion in the lower margin.

__Heckman__' B I N D K R Y, 1 N L.

Bound-Tb-Please"

JUNE 00., .I/VH/-UCSTPH INDIANA46962

Nestle, Eberhard, 1851-1913:Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament (1901)

Documents

Transcript of Nestle, Eberhard, 1851-1913:Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament (1901)